the public school response to cyber charter programs ... · to the development of a template for...

The Public School Response to Cyber Charter Programs: Fiscal Considerations,

Retention and Recruitment Strategies, and Participant Experiences

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

of

Drexel University

by

John Christopher Hardin

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree

of

Doctor of Education

May 2015

This EdD Dissertation Committee from The School of Education at Drexel University

certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:

The Public School Response to Cyber Charter Programs:

Fiscal considerations, retention and recruitment strategies, and participant experiences


Committee:

_______________________________

Dr. Allen C. Grant

_______________________________

Dr. Kathleen Provinzano

_______________________________

Dr. Katherine H. Kieres

_______________________________

Date

ii

Dedications

I dedicate this dissertation to my wife, Angelica, for her constant support

throughout my work on this endeavor. Your love, enthusiasm, patience, reassurance, and

understanding buoyed my spirits when my energy reserves were at their lowest. I also

dedicate this dissertation to my father, mother, and stepfather for their guidance and

emphasis on the importance of growth through educational attainment and the seeking of

knowledge. I also thank many other family members who supported me during this often

challenging journey toward the completion of my degree.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to express great gratitude to Dr. Allen Grant, my committee

chairperson, who was continuously prompt in his responses to all my queries and

provided me sage advice throughout my study. Special thanks to committee member Dr.

Kathleen Provinzano for her feedback and suggested revisions early on in my proposal

process, which helped propel me toward a more focused topic. Further kudos to

committee member Dr. Kate Kieres for her support and suggestions regarding numerous

study questions as well as for serving as a source of inspiration as one who completed the

Ed.D. degree.

I would like to thank the students, parents, and school administrators who served

as participants in this study and the various members of the school site who were

extremely supportive of my research into gaining a better understanding of the

experiences of those involved in online learning. The following members of the school

administration displayed considerable interest in my study and graciously allowed for

flexibility that enabled me to complete this process: Dr. Bridget O’Connell, Dr. Karl

Scheibenhofer, Mr. Rich Kiker, Mr. Drew Bishop, and Mr. Rich Heffernan. Thank you.

iv

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

Statement of Problem ................................................................................................. 2

Purpose Statement ...................................................................................................... 2

Research Questions .................................................................................................... 4

Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 5

Researcher Stance and Experiential Base ............................................................ 5

Research Streams ....................................................................................................... 9

Fiscal Conditions ................................................................................................. 9

Retention and Recruitment ................................................................................ 10

Participant Experiences: Administrators, Students, and Parents ....................... 11

Definitions of Terms ................................................................................................ 13

Limitations ............................................................................................................... 15

Summary .................................................................................................................. 17

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 18

Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................ 19

Cyber Education and Funding/Fiscal Conditions .............................................. 20

Recruitment and Retention Strategies ................................................................ 23

Student, Parent, and School Administrator Experiences With Online

Learning ............................................................................................................. 25

v

Types of Online Programming........................................................................... 32

Summary .................................................................................................................. 35

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 37

Research Design and Rationale ............................................................................... 37

Site and Population .................................................................................................. 39

Rationale .................................................................................................................. 41

Population Description............................................................................................. 42

Data Collection and Site Access .............................................................................. 45

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 55

Artifacts.................................................................................................................... 57

Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................. 58

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS & RESULTS .......................................................................... 61

Findings.................................................................................................................... 61

Teacher Quality .................................................................................................. 63

Retention and Recruitment ................................................................................ 68

Program Perception ............................................................................................ 74

Support ............................................................................................................... 80

Flexibility ........................................................................................................... 85

Social Interaction ............................................................................................... 89

Cost and Financials ............................................................................................ 93

Artifact Analysis: Overall District Enrollment and Demographics ................... 95

Charter and Cyber Charter Enrollment and Per Pupil Costs.............................. 95

Student Demographics: In-District Cyber Program ........................................... 96

Artifact: Strategic Planning Documents ............................................................ 97

vi

Artifact: Teacher Survey Information .............................................................. 101

Artifact: Financial Documents and Past Records ............................................ 101

Financial and District Savings ......................................................................... 102

Results and Interpretations ..................................................................................... 104

Summary ................................................................................................................ 107

CHAPTER 5: INTERPRETATION, CONCLUSION, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 108

Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 108

Recommendations .................................................................................................. 112

Advertising ....................................................................................................... 112

Quality of Purchased Courses .......................................................................... 115

Overall Retention and Recruitment Practices .................................................. 116

Possible Action Steps ....................................................................................... 116

Recommendations for Further Research ................................................................ 118

Summary ................................................................................................................ 119

LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 121

APPENDIX A: STUDY APPROVAL LETTER ........................................................... 128

APPENDIX B: ASSUMPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND DELIMITATIONS ............. 129

APPENDIX C: ALIGNMENT WITH RESEARCH QUESTIONS, RESEARCH

METHODS, AND DATA SOURCES ........................................................................ 130

APPENDIX D: PROBING QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 131

APPENDIX E: THEMES AND PARTICIPANT GROUPS’ KEY POINTS AND

PHRASES .................................................................................................................... 132

APPENDIX F: WORD WEBS ....................................................................................... 148

VITA ............................................................................................................................... 151

vii

List of Tables

1. Research Questions .................................................................................................... 48

2. Probing Questions Asked to School Administrators ................................................. 48

3. Probing Questions Asked to Students and Parents .................................................... 49

4. Dissertation Timeline ................................................................................................. 52

5. Data Collection and Analysis Timeline ..................................................................... 54

6. Themes, Participant Responses, and Number of References ..................................... 62

7. Emerging Themes ...................................................................................................... 63

8. Charter and Cyber Charter School Costs: 2006–2007 Through 2010–2011

School Year ............................................................................................................... 98

9. In-District Budgetary Amounts................................................................................ 102

10. In-District Budgetary Savings.................................................................................. 103

11. B1. Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ................................................... 129

12. C1. Alignment With Research Questions, Research Methods, and Data Sources .. 130

13. D1. Probing Questions ............................................................................................. 131

14. E1. Themes and Participant Groups’ Key Points and Phrases................................. 132

viii

List of Figures

1. Conceptual framework .................................................................................................. 8

ix

Abstract

The Public School Response to Cyber Charter Programs:

Fiscal Considerations, Retention and Recruitment Strategies, and Participant Experiences


Allen C. Grant, Ph.D.

The purpose of this descriptive case study was to determine contributing factors

for students’ and parents’ decisions to remain in, or return to, a district’s cyber school

program. This study also sought to determine the efficacy of a school district’s cyber

program, and how efficacy specifically contributed to students’ and families’ decision-

making process about where to attend online learning. This study examined the practices

that one public school district employed in its management of cyber programming, as

well as its retention and recruitment plans as they related to in-district cyber education in

K–12 schools. The primary research questions of this study were: What are the

experiences of administrators, students, and parents involved with the in-district

program? Why are students remaining in the district’s cyber program? Why are students

returning to the district’s cyber program? What are the factors that influence a student to

either remain in or return to the district’s cyber program? What role do teachers have

regarding student persistence and student retention?

The researcher used semistructured interview questions to determine the most

effective means of student retention, recruitment, and cyber program development while

understanding experiences of students, parents, and school administrators. The researcher

attempted to find a relationship between district cyber programmatic design and student

x

academic interest or need as well as parental responses that indicated vital programmatic

characteristics from their perspective. Ideally, the results of this study will eventually lead

to the development of a template for K–12 in-district cyber program success after

viewing the results from the district in this case study research. Seven themes emerged

from the semistructured interviews: teacher quality, retention and recruitment, program

perception, support, flexibility, social interaction and costs/financials. Results points

toward the importance of having in-district teachers involved in the program to ensure

quality feedback from teacher to student both online and face to face, which is important

in supporting student success. Schedule flexibility is an excellent byproduct of the in-

district program; increasing program understanding through advertising as it could further

support retention and recruitment. It is also important to pay close attention to costs

associated with students leaving the district for cyber charter programs, as they can be

extremely high. Recommendations point toward increasing advertising associated with

in-district cyber programming, analyzing the quality of purchased cyber courses, and

reviewing current retention and recruitment practices.

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Economic volatility, combined with rapidly increasing cyber charter enrollments,

has many districts looking for ways to defray costs and keep themselves fiscally sound

amid the rising per pupil expenditures that districts must pay to cyber charter schools.

Foster (2011) has remarked that these current economic conditions may lead to long-term

instability in the educational funding system, highlighting the importance of developing

in-district cyber programming. A growing and extremely challenging problem for

districts is how to construct quality cyber programs.

Throughout Pennsylvania and the United States, K–12 students are opting for a

flexible education that allows for a full cyber or blended learning school experience

(Democratic House Education Committee, 2014). According to the Pennsylvania School

Board Association Issue Brief (PSBA) on cyber schools, cyber charter school enrollment

across the state has increased by “more than 14,000 students” (p. 1) from the 2005–2006

to the 2010–2011 school year. To meet the needs of these students and families,

Pennsylvania authorized the implementation of cyber charter schools, which are defined

by the Educational Law Center (2013) as a “school that provides most of its instruction to

its students through the Internet or by some other electronic means” (p.1). These cyber

charter schools are funded through traditional public school districts on a per pupil tuition

basis. Because the increasing enrollment of cyber charter schools and the public school

response with its own cyber programming are relatively new phenomena, there is very

little research regarding the success or failure of in-district cyber programs in the United

States, and particularly in Pennsylvania. Additionally, many school districts are either

2

struggling to retain and recruit students in their own in-district cyber programming or do

not possess a program at all. There is limited research regarding the successful strategies

that school districts can utilize to effectively address the needs and wants of parents and

students regarding district online programming. Therefore, research on the topic of

recruitment and retention of in-district online school students and the successful

strategies that support student and parent desires is a worthwhile and beneficial course of

study. Also, other districts across the state could utilize the results of this study given that

little data or findings are currently available on K–12 cyber student recruitment/retention

and student, parent, and administrator experiences.

Statement of Problem

School districts are struggling to retain current students and develop programs

that are viable compared to cyber charter program offerings. At the time this project was

undertaken, the in-district cyber program in this study was facing competition from

several cyber charter programs within the region and the state. The majority of students

attended two different cyber charter programs while the remaining students attended

several different online charter options. Cyber programming necessitated a deeper

understanding of the district’s retention and recruitment strategies and an exploration into

how these strategies were aligned or misaligned with student and parent cyber

expectations.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study was to determine how the district was recruiting and

retaining students interested in attending cyber programs within the region of

southeastern Pennsylvania, and how it could improve its current practice. This study

3

analyzed which specific programmatic elements students and parents in the district

deemed vital in a K–12 online learning environment that may have supported retention or

recruitment practices. Public school districts are required to provide tuition payments for

students who opt to attend cyber charter programs; this subsidization causes significant

financial issues for nearly all public K–12 schools and districts throughout Pennsylvania.

Research from the Pennsylvania School Board Association concluded that cyber charter

school costs vary from several thousand dollars to amounts over $20,000.

This issue is a lamentable one for school board members, school administrators,

and members of the school community who are becoming more aware of the costs

associated with cyber charter and charter programs. In general, many community

members and school leaders are seeking their local political representation to best address

current concerns regarding these educational options that are financially challenging to

local public school districts.

The next major area of importance pertains to recruitment and retention strategies,

which provide insight into what programmatic elements may support the growth of in-

district cyber program development. Pape, Revenaugh, Watson, and Wicks (2006) have

explained that successful “online programs take seriously the need to measure the success

of their programs through extensive data collection,” but that “the lack of common

measures demonstrates the challenges for parents and students who are making education

choices, and policy makers responsible for overseeing these programs” (p. 57).

Moreover, Pape et al. (2006) found that “carefully tracking who is teaching the course is

also important,” such as tracking teachers who are highly qualified or have previously

taught the course; they also determined that “persistence of effort matters” (p. 57) by

4

online students, and that these students must be engaged in the content. This finding

would support the notion that providing engaging programming within the in-district

cyber program would equate to student and parent satisfaction.

Berge and Huang (2004) have asserted that online programs should create “a

customizable model of student retention that takes into account personal, circumstantial,

and institutional factors, as well as the interconnectedness of these factors” (p.1).

Individualizing student learning is critical to the respected and universal practice in K–12

education of differentiating instruction for the needs of learners.

The last area of focus is on understanding student, parent, and school

administrator experiences within the context of online learning, which is key to

developing an ideal program design and positive student outcomes. Cavanaugh, Gillan,

Kromrey, Hess, and Blomeyer (2004) stated that teacher quality and the frequency of

communication between students and teachers is vital to online academic outcomes (as

cited in Kozma et al., 2000). K–12 online learning is a relatively new program, and much

more research must be conducted to fully understand the perceptions of students, parents,

and school administrators to create high quality in-district cyber programs, and to

eventually generate a template for other districts to follow.

Research Questions

Primary Question:

1. What are the experiences of administrators, students, and parents involved

with the in-district cyber program?

Subquestions:

2. Why are students remaining with the district’s cyber program? Why are

5

students returning to the district’s cyber program? What are the factors that

influence a student to either remain or return to the district’s cyber program?

What role do teachers have regarding student persistence and student retention?

Conceptual Framework

Researcher Stance and Experiential Base

Creswell (2013) has noted that one must consider the ontological impact

when beginning research. Grix (2002) explained that ontology is “the image of social

reality upon which a theory is based” (p. 177), which relates to how research and research

outcomes can influence how theories are developed and perceived. The researcher

evaluated how the current understanding of the research site may influence his experience

with participants and their responses. The researcher was cognizant of the necessary steps

to avoid researcher bias, as noted by Creswell (2012), and abided by the requirements to

use “language that avoids demeaning attitudes, including biased assumptions, and

awkward constructions that suggest bias because of gender, sexual orientation, racial or

ethnic group, disability or age” (p. 277). Other than name, specific descriptions of

participants in the study afforded an appropriate distance between the researcher and

participants, as recommended by Creswell (2012). The researcher stated in writing that

participants would not be penalized for their responses or decision not to participate in

the study. Although the researcher was employed by the district in which this study was

conducted, participants were made fully aware—via consent forms—that participation or

lack thereof in no way negatively influenced their relationship with the school.

Additionally, participants were informed that pseudonyms were used in the written report

to allow for confidentiality. Only the researcher had access to interview data, and the data

6

were not shared with school officials. It is also important to note and consider the

different perspectives and outcomes that arose based upon the type of research model

being employed and the lens through which the research was viewed and evaluated.

The researcher was tasked with evaluating the “evidence of multiple realities

including the use of multiple forms of evidence in themes using the actual words of

different individuals and presenting different perspectives” (Creswell, 2013, p. 20).

Because this research was a case study, the researcher was able to “provide an in-depth

exploration of a bounded system (e.g., an activity, an event, a process, or an individual)

based on extensive data collection (Creswell, 2013, p. 617). The researcher took a social

constructivist approach to the research study as, according to Creswell (2013),

“individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work. They develop

subjective meaning of these experiences” (p. 23), as such multiple realities related to in-

district cyber learning experiences exist, and the researcher had to explore those realities

to paint a complete picture related to this district’s cyber program. The recording of the

experiences of students, parents, and administrators served as a tool to determine what

factors are important to in-district cyber school success, while considering areas of

growth and improvement. Each participant and participant group provided its own unique

experience and opinion during the semistructured interview process, allowed for

authentic commentary on in-district cyber education, and illustrated important factors that

this district and others may seek to continue or establish regarding online education

programs.

Additionally, this particular case study was categorized as a descriptive case

study, as “it serves the purpose of illuminating a particular issue” (Creswell, 2012, p.

7

465). Merriam (2009) has stated the following about a descriptive case study:

“Descriptive means that the end product of a case study is a rich, ‘thick’ description of

the phenomenon under study” (p. 43). Merriam (2009) concluded, “Thick description is a

term from anthropology and means the complete, literal description of the incident or

entity being investigated” (p. 43). Merriam (2009) reported that case studies may

“include as many variables as possible and portray their interaction, often over a period

of time” (p. 43). During this study, the researcher was able to determine how variables

may impact the in-district cyber program as well as detail strengths and areas for growth.

The researcher was able to examine the unique phenomenon of K–12 online learning and

the factors involved in determining programmatic success. Through the careful

examination of these authentic experiences of administrators, students, and parents, the

researcher was able to access commonalities that displayed consensus among participants

regarding ideal or essential online learning design, implementation, and instruction.

The concept and practice of in-district cyber programming is a new and emerging

area in the field of education. Excursions into the use of online learning should be taken

with a measured approach that assures that course content and instructional practices will

remain intact. Unfortunately, many school districts are being adversely impacted by the

financial losses associated with students leaving for cyber charter school options. As

cyber charter school programs expand and drain funds from public school resources,

public school leaders and administrators are seeking fast solutions that lead to student

retention and recruitment. The researcher believes that inquiry into this topic can reveal

which practices that one school district used with its in-district cyber school program

should or could be universally or systematically applied to public schools around the state

8

of Pennsylvania and the nation. The researcher’s current experience as a teacher of cyber

courses within the public school setting allowed him to see the successes and failures of

cyber programming and will hopefully enable him to carefully apply these experiences to

a template for other schools to follow. The researcher believes that a set of

implementation standards and recruitment and retention practices could elicit significant

change and guide public school districts toward K–12 cyber implementation excellence.

The conceptual framework for this study is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework. This figure displays the participant experiences, fiscal

conditions, recruitment/retention strategies for how each component makes up an in-

district online learning program.

According to the researcher, the most influential elements of research in the field

of cyber education in K–12 public schools most likely center around a small number of

9

public schools in Pennsylvania currently implementing in-house or district K–12 cyber

programs. The financial costs associated with students choosing cyber charter

programming outside of their home district are prohibitive for all districts. In-district

cyber programming is an attempt to curb this fiscal concern, and this researcher seeks to

determine factors that lead to increased student recruitment and retention with feedback

from administrators, students, and parents.

Research Streams

Fiscal Conditions

With the rapid expansion of cyber programs around the nation, the question of funding is

of the utmost concern as districts attempt to manage the rising costs and expenditures

associated with online learning. According to one superintendent in Berks County,

Pennsylvania:

It costs $4,500 to $5,000 per student for Brandywine Heights to run its own online

program. However, the district ends up paying tuition to cyber charters of more

than $9,000 per student. The number is even higher for special education students.

(Mekeel, 2011, p. 2).

Unfortunately, public schools are not able to fully fund each student’s tuition

while cyber charter programs are allowed to keep a surplus of funds. Keagy, Peterson,

Strauss, and Yarworth (2010) explained that Pennsylvania has been quite lenient

regarding the governance of cyber charter school finances and possible surpluses:

While the School Code creates a cap of school districts’ fund balances of 8-12%,

charter schools have no such cap. According to the Pennsylvania Department of

Education, 80% of cyber schools have fund balances exceeding the cap placed on

school districts. (p. 16)

Although online learning may make or provide more options for students at cyber charter

10

programs in Pennsylvania and around the nation, K–12 public school districts are

financially responsible for providing tuition for each student who chooses to attend one

of these programs. However, K–12 public school districts are attempting to save money

by providing their own in-district cyber programming in an effort to retain and recruit

potential or current cyber charter students. One example regarding in-district program

cost savings comes from the Quakertown Community School District in Bucks County.

This district reported that its cyber program “grossed more than $156,000” and allowed

for “savings of $50,000 per year” (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2013, p. 2).

Finally, initial reports from the school district via the business administrator

(2014) mentioned that, from 2009 to 2013, the district’s budget for charter school

enrollment, which included cyber charter tuition reimbursement, had increased from

$466,269 to $749.160 annually, not including special education students. In the 2011–

2012 school year, the district saved a total of $86,352, $126,821 in 2012–2013, and

$270,000 in 2013–2014. The aforementioned costs accounted for students who were

budgeted to attend a cyber school. The business administrator (e-mail message to author,

July 8, 2014) stated that it is very difficult to determine or measure why students decided

not to attend the cyber charter program based upon the offerings at the school district.

Retention and Recruitment

Barbour (2010) noted that retention issues are one of many factors currently

impacting online learning, as some students are not equipped or ready to complete online

coursework. Cavanaugh (2009) explained that student isolation and the quality of online

programming impact student retention in the online or cyber format (as cited in Barbour,

2010, p. 4). Rice (2006) stated that students’ performance could be based on the delivery

11

model of instruction and their experience in the environment (as cited in Barbour, 2010,

p. 4). Further research is needed regarding specific kinds of retention or recruitment

strategies that may support student consistency in a district cyber program. Smith (2005)

stated that “understanding and improving student persistence,” “issues related to

satisfaction and motivation,” and “identifying and remediating characteristics for

successful online learning” could foster a better understanding of what leads to retention

and high rates of student recruitment (as cited by Barbour, 2010, p. 8).

Preliminary research regarding online learning has indicated that when a program

is able to “develop organized evaluation systems that examine multiple aspects of

distance learning to facilitate consistent data collection” (Rice, 2009, p. 174), then

schools are able to clearly determine successes and failures within programs. Schools that

understand the importance of effective evaluation of these key areas plan to see

improvement relating to attendance, retention, and student outcomes.

Lee and Figueroa (2012) remarked that “discussion boards, e-mail, telephone,

Skype, instant messaging, and any other forms of communication tools available” (p.25),

are likely to engage students in the online educational experience. Lee and Figueroa

(2012) also stressed the importance of parental involvement to online learning success

along with evaluation tools or pretests that students must take prior to beginning an

online course. Lee and Figueroa (2012) further stated that ease of course use with an

emphasis on short, concise modules and a focus on skill mastery are also key to student

success.

Participant Experiences: Administrators, Students, and Parents

The administrative, student, and parent experience with K–12 online learning is a

12

valuable component to understand when considering best practices for in-district program

development. To develop strong in-district cyber content and procedures, it is important

to understand both the positive and negative experiences reported by parents and

students. The United States Department of Education’s (2010) report regarding online

learning found, “Distance learning outcomes were less positive when instructor

involvement was low, with effects more positive, up to a point, as instructor involvement

increased” (p. 74). Cavanaugh et al. (2004) concluded that, at times, “students may feel

isolated, parents may have concerns about children’s social development, students with

language difficulties may experience a disadvantage in text-heavy online environment,

and [with] subjects requiring physical demonstrations of skills” (p. 5). Furthermore,

research by Rice (2006) recorded that:

Students across studies appear to enroll in online courses for similar reasons.

Convenience, flexibility in scheduling, credit recovery, accelerated learning

opportunities, conflict avoidance, and the ability to take courses offered at a local

school are just some of the reasons identified in the research. (as cited in Mills,

2003, p. 434; Tunison & Noonan, 2001)

Also, parents and students are likely to choose online learning in the K–12 setting

because “the local brick-and-mortar school down the street is not meeting their needs”

due to a variety of reasons, and also as “a way to avoid negative influences or bullying.

Kids with special needs make up 10% of K12’s student population” (Riley, 2011, p.1).

Lastly, it is important to note that, according to Huett, Moller, Foshay, and

Coleman (2008), “The majority of research on student success in online courses has been

conducted in higher education settings” (as cited in O’Dwyer, Carey, & Kleiman, 2007,

p.65; Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). Clearly, further research is needed to appreciate the

best practices of retention and recruitment in online learning; the analysis of fiscal

13

considerations and the recording of parent, student, and administrative perceptions and

experiences is a vital component to understanding best practices considering in-district

online learning. This study examined the experiences of administrators, students, and

parents while providing insight into retention and recruitment outcomes in the context of

a school district’s cyber program.

Definitions of Terms

Asynchronous: Recorded or the accessibility of course content at the student’s

own pace. Not live or in real time. Materials are available online, and students complete

the assignments through online submission based on due dates.

Blackboard: Online course platform that provides the organization and navigation

of the online course.

Blended learning: Students complete portions of their coursework online or face

to face. The number of required traditional face-to-face meetings varies based on the

design of the program or course.

Blended schools: An online course developer, content provider, and professional

development company; provides cyber courses to hundreds of school districts throughout

the State of Pennsylvania.

Cyber charter school: An entire online educational entity devoted to online

instruction, not necessarily required to abide by state mandates and testing regulations

(Pennsylvania School Board Association, 2011).

Cyber school: A school or program in which students can complete K–12

coursework entirely at home or another location or partially at home and in a designated

cyber school environment (Education Law Center, 2008).

14

Cyber student: A student in grades K–12 who, by his or her own choice or

through the designated approval of his or her parent or guardian, chooses to attend and

take coursework entirely online without required face-to-face instruction.

Director of online learning: A school administrator responsible for all functions

of cyber and blended learning within a public school district. The director is also

responsible for recruiting and retaining students that may have left, or are considering a

cyber-charter educational program or school.

Full-cyber student: A student who takes all of his or her coursework online. He or

she may attend the school site as needed to access tutoring or support services, but all

instruction is based online. These students typically take three to five online classes per

semester.

In-district cyber program or school: An online educational program designed and

supervised under the scope of a K–12 public school district.

Local Education Agency (LEA): A school district that provides schooling and

educational services to those in a given community.

Learning Management System (LMS): An entirely online platform or web-based

system, such as Blackboard, that organizes and records course content, grades,

discussion, and a variety of other online communication tools.

Online class: An educational course delivered by a teacher entirely through the

use of computer technology. The course may be conducted via asynchronous or

synchronous instruction. Students are often required to communicate with the instructor

or teacher virtually.

Online learning: Students participate and take courses utilizing a computer,

15

conduct discussion through online discussion boards, and utilize a LMS (Learning

Management System).

Partial cyber student: These students take one or more online classes, but still

attend their home school district on a regular basis for face-to-face classes. Students have

access to support from regular and cyber students while physically attending the school

building.

Per pupil costs: The dollar amount associated with the cost to educate each

student. The costs associated with educating a public school student in a traditional

system versus an online student in the cyber charter program is considerably higher in the

public school face-to-face setting. The per pupil costs imposed by cyber charter schools

are a major contributing factor to financial difficulties for public school districts.

School district (or district): An area or region containing schools that a school

board is in charge of; a unit for administration of a public-school system often comprising

several towns within a state (Merriam-Webster, 2014).

Synchronous: Live or real-time participation by students and instructors regarding

course content, conversations, lectures, assessments, etc.

Limitations

Some of the difficulties associated with a study such as this one stem from the

relative newness of K–12 cyber education programs and options. Many districts were just

beginning to formulate plans to incorporate cyber programs within their public schools,

and this research ran the risk of being met with criticism, as the study examined the

successes and failures of one school district, not hundreds. Additionally, what works for

one district may not translate into success for another district seeking to implement the

16

best practices delineated in this study’s findings. Moreover, this research assumed that

districts in the State of Pennsylvania would be receptive to results pertaining to other

districts, and perhaps would want to conduct their own study to address specific concerns

relative to their particular school and district. This study also operated under the

assumption that the vast majority of schools were considering ways to combat the flood

of students leaving for cyber charter programs. The fact that research supports the rise in

cyber school enrollment does not mean that each school district within the State of

Pennsylvania or around the country is likewise impacted in a negative manner.

However, this research does surmise that a number of school districts throughout

the state and country would consider the findings and outcomes regarding best practices

of a high-performing district and public cyber program to be quite noteworthy and

valuable. The stagnant economy and rise of per pupil cyber education expenditures do

speak to the viability of this particular research and its potential effectiveness.

This researcher sought to examine one district that was utilizing a cyber school

program or cyber classes. The district is located in Upper Bucks County approximately

55 to 60 miles north of Philadelphia. The district is deemed rural-distant code (42), as

noted by the National Center for Education Statistics (2012), which is defined as “more

than 5 miles but less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural

territory that is more than 2.5 miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban

cluster” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014, p.1). The district had an

enrollment of approximately 1,800 students with three elementary schools, one middle

school, and one high school. Although this study may be relevant to districts of this size,

limitations could arise regarding its application to large urban school districts in and out

17

of the State of Pennsylvania. This researcher interviewed school administrators in this

district, with the goal of determining how the district could recruit back or retain students

in its current in-district cyber program. The researcher interviewed three administrators in

the district as well as 12 students and five parents; it was possible that this small number

of participants would not reveal or provide substantial support for or against this district’s

cyber education practices. Other limitations may pertain to the lack of analyzable data

because—at the time of this study—this program had only been in existence for five

years. Delimitations concern the researcher’s decision not to conduct research in large

suburban or urban districts due to the marked difference in programmatic design and

implementation. The researcher did not interview elementary students who had or were

participating in the in-district cyber program, as their experiences may have been difficult

to accurately record and analyze. Lastly, the researcher did not specifically study cyber

charter schools and their programs because the researcher’s goal was to analyze public

in-district cyber programming experiences.

Summary

This chapter explained the format, design plan, and potential pitfalls associated

with a study of in-district K–12 cyber programs in a rural school district. The research in

this study aimed to determine which factors were most helpful to establish a successful

public cyber school that is able to retain and recruit students from competing cyber

charter programs. Ideally, the outcomes described in this particular chapter would support

the development of other in-district cyber programs in the State of Pennsylvania while

providing evidence championing the revision or establishment of policies and practices

that are supportive of student, parent, and school administrator needs and goals.

18

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

According to the Pennsylvania School Board Association Issue Brief (PSBA):

Cyber Charter School issue, cyber charter school enrollment across the state has

increased by “more than 14,000 students” from the 2005–2006 to the 2010–2011 school

year (Pennsylvania School Board Association Issue Brief: Cyber Charter Schools, 2011,

p. 1). Tuition payments for which traditional public school districts are responsible range

from “$5,000 to $15,000 for per pupil costs” (Pennsylvania School Board Association,

2011, p.1). Wagner (2012) also noted that Pennsylvania has the highest per pupil

spending cyber charter system in the country, at “$12,657 per student while the U.S.

average per charter/cyber student is $10,790” (p. 2). According to former Pennsylvania

Auditor General Jack Wagner’s report (2012), “charter and cyber charter education

funding reform should save taxpayers $365 million annually” (p.1) if his

recommendations were considered. The expense of this tuition reimbursement is now

prompting the implementation of in-district cyber programming as a cost-saving measure.

Because the costs of losing students to cyber charter programming are so prohibitive,

school districts are developing in-district cyber programming in an effort to recruit and

retain students. School administrators, students, and parents, along with their experiences,

are key factors to understanding the in-district cyber planning strategies that support

successful retention and recruitment outcomes. This literature review provides a

background on current fiscal conditions that influenced a district to begin an in-district

cyber program while analyzing cyber recruitment and retention practices along with the

experiences of key school administrators, students, and parents in the area of K–12 online

learning.

19

Conceptual Framework

Fiscal factors, recruitment, and retention strategies, along with the experiences of

students, parents, and school administrators were all insightful as to how an in-district

cyber program successfully met the needs of district stakeholders and supported

educational goals. The fundamental questions that can help understand what constitutes a

successful in-district cyber program are as follows.

Primary Question:

1. What are the experiences and perceptions of administrators, students, and

parents involved with the in-district cyber program?

Subquestions:




What role do teachers have regarding student persistence and student

retention?

The three streams of data most important for understanding one district’s in-district cyber

programming are fiscal conditions, recruitment and retention, and participant

experiences. In the first stream, fiscal conditions within this particular district and

throughout the United States point to the high costs of allowing students to leave their

home district for another cyber charter or charter opportunity. These rising costs present a

major problem for most districts in Pennsylvania and around the country. The second

stream, recruitment and retention strategies for students who may have attended another

cyber program or are considering it, is a significant area of research, since it influences

20

why students and parents feel that a particular program is successful or not. Research

determined the common factors associated with cyber recruitment and retention

strategies. The third stream of research determined and analyzed how school

administrators, students, and parents perceived the cyber program, and how a district or

cyber charter program was meeting or met their needs for learning.

Cyber Education and Funding/Fiscal Conditions

The continual evaporation of local, state, and federal resources is creating a crisis

of epic proportions for K–12 schools across the nation. Over the last five years, the

economic recession has depleted many of the traditional funding resources for K–12

educational programs. Hull (2010) stated that budgets might suffer for a number of years

as inflation will likely occur by 2014, causing price increases for a variety of services.

Klein (2008) reported that educational funding was the last priority as government

officials struggled to save private sector jobs and prevent a recession. Eger (2009) argued

that the lack of educational monies available to schools through local, state, and federal

funding has forced school districts to increase property taxes, lay off workers, and reject

proposed budgets throughout the country. Foster (2011) remarked that the current

economic situation might lead to long-term instability in the educational funding system.

The aforementioned financial issues, combined with the increase in student

attendance in cyber charter programming—which requires tuition reimbursement from

K–12 districts, has created a major issue for traditional public schools. According to the

Pennsylvania School Board Association Issue Brief (PSBA) Cyber Charter School issue

brief, cyber charter school enrollment across the state has increased by “more than 14,000

students” from the 2005–2006 to the 2010–2011 school year (Pennsylvania School Board

21

Association Issue Brief: Cyber Charter Schools, 2011, p. 1). Additionally, the cost

associated with tuition reimbursement at cyber charter schools that public schools must

finance is “$5,000 to $15,000 for per pupil tuition costs” (Pennsylvania School Board

Association, 2011, p.1). Wagner (2012) also explained that Pennsylvania has the highest

per pupil spending cyber charter system in the country, at “$12,657 per student while the

U.S. average per charter/cyber student is $10,790” (p. 2). The expense of this tuition

reimbursement is now triggering the implementation of in-district cyber programming as

a cost-saving measure.

With the rapid expansion of cyber programs around the nation, the question of

funding is of the utmost concern as districts attempt to manage the rising costs and

expenditures associated with online learning. Furthermore, budget shortfalls in each state

and most school districts in the United States require study of the amount of dollars spent

on buildings and the option of educating more and more students in a virtual or blended

environment. As noted in Burgess-Watkins (2011), one school district in Florida sought

to acquire funding based upon individual student performance. The Florida Virtual

School received state aid as well as contributions from public schools that sent students to

the cyber school. Unfortunately, public schools are feeling the burden of the virtual

school costs and are not able to fully fund each individual student’s tuition. Ash (2010)

reported that cyber schools must then charge student tuition to make up for the shortfall

between student costs and public school district contributions. Many critics have argued

that the cost of educating a student in cyber school is far less than the traditional face-to-

face model and often wonder where the money is going.

22

Other research has pointed to the need for K–12 online learning as a cheaper way

to educate students, while simultaneously saving money and increasing student

engagement in the curriculum. Friedman and Friedman (2011) noted that blended

learning programs may make the most sense for students and can still allow schools to

save money by cutting instructional costs. Although this isn’t an actual type of alternative

funding, cyber education does appear to be a money-saving measure—but the full benefit

or proof of K–12 online merits remains to be determined.

Additionally, research regarding K–12 online learning models and funding

address the concept of grant funding aid to support cyber schools beyond public school

contributions (Barbour, 2010). Unfortunately, these grant funding dollars may have to

come from the state and require substantial contributions that are presently not available.

Again, this type of funding structure does not seem to be a sustainable way to support the

needs of scores of schools (K–12 tradition and cyber) around the nation.

Another form of research points to the necessity that K–12 schools provide their

own in-house cyber programs in an effort to save funding that typically goes toward the

private charter schools providing online programming. Horn (2010) found that the public

school-developed cyber courses are quite essential to the financial stability and

sustainability of public education. Some states have begun to withhold monies to public

schools that fail to support cyber education through the implementation of their own

programs. It is also important to note that 34 states across the country are utilizing state-

run cyber programs that inevitably take monies from traditional K–12 school models.

Additionally, some component of online learning is currently used in 60% of schools in

the United States (Arora, 2009). Over the last several years, cyber schools have been

23

growing at a rate of 20% per year, and additional funds are required to support these

increases. Simultaneously, most states will face a budget crisis by 2013, and many did,

leading to fewer dollars available to schools (Meyer, Bruwelheide, & Poulin, 2009). It

seems apparent that it would be financially irresponsible for public schools to ignore the

need for online programming, as scores of students have decided to access their education

through nontraditional means.

Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Davis (2012) found that the individualization of course content with various

course choices was attractive to students and families regarding online learning. Davis

(2012) recorded that “Adam Emerson—a school choice analyst for the Washington-based

Thomas B. Fordham Institute, said online-choice legislation over the past few years has

had a direct impact on offerings for students, particularly in Florida” (p. 1). Therefore,

this type of competition has spurred the development of in-district cyber programs.

Attrition rates can elicit study of best practices for recruitment and retention as

well as goals or strategies for in-district programs. Angelino, Williams, and Natvig

(2007) reported, “Attrition rates for classes taught through distance education are 10-20%

higher than classes taught in a face-to-face setting” (p. 1). These attrition rates apply to

the college and university student experience, but the findings of Angelino et al. (2007)

can still be useful as various strategies for improving one’s online learning experience,

and are transferrable to K–12 education. Angelino et al. (2007) stated that capturing early

engagement from students during the course is key to student success, as is the effort to

“initiate contact with students via phone call,” “conduct a pre-course orientation,” and

“facilitate informal online chats throughout the course website,” all of which lead to

24

“frequent contact with students” and “encourages spontaneous interactions among

students and faculty” (p. 10). Angelino et al. (2007) also remarked that teachers

attempted to develop content that “focuses on the learner’s needs; not just what is easy.

Online students may have similar needs for assistance and resources as traditional

students” (p. 10).

Berge and Huang (2004) have recommended that online programs develop “a

customizable model of student retention that takes into account personal, circumstantial,

and institutional factors, as well as the interconnectedness of these factors” (p. 1). This

suggestion aligns with the educational practice of differentiating instructional goals and

processes to meet the needs of students who often have a wide range of areas and

complexities to consider.

Cavanaugh et al. (2004) explained that “virtual school teachers must be adept at

helping children acquire the skills of autonomous learning, including self-regulation” (p.

6) as young learners need continual guidance and support to be successful with online

learning coursework. Within the scope of online learning, Cavanaugh et al. (2004) found

that “younger students will need more supervision, fewer and simpler instructions, and a

more extensive reinforcement system than older students” (p. 7). Among the quality

program elements that Cavanaugh et al. (2004) mentioned for students are “frequent

teacher contact with students and parents, lessons divided into short segments, mastery

sequences so student progress can grow in stages, and rewards for learning such as

multimedia praise and printable stickers or certificates” (p. 7). Lastly, Cavanaugh et al.

(2004) explained, “Online learning environments, when designed to fully use the many

tools of communication that are available, is often a more active, constructive, and

25

cooperative experience than classroom learning” (p. 8), but this is clearly a challenging

proposition.

The Rogers Family Foundation (2011) stated that its online and blended learning

program provides content created by its teachers, and that all courses have dashboards

that provide students, teachers, administrators, and parents access to the courses. The

Rogers Family Foundation (2011) also reported that teacher instructional practice should

include “small group instruction, integration of digital content, differentiated instruction,

use of data, self-efficacy and increased satisfaction” (p. 5). The report and plan also noted

that “increased capacity: improved IT support; expanded capacity for instructional

coaching involving the use of technology; flexibility” (p. 5) are all elements of successful

cyber and blended programs for schools, students, parents, and so forth.

Background information on online learning. Rice (2006) explained:

Distance education programs can serve entire populations of students that

traditional classrooms do not by providing increased opportunity through choice,

tutoring and supplemental services to: students who live in remote areas, students

in home school settings, those who are hospitalized or homebound for health

reasons” or many other potential scenarios. (p. 427, as cited in Bogden, 2003;

Chaney, 2001; Patrick, 2004).

Rice (2006) also noted that at the time of this publication, it was quite difficult to develop

an accurate comparison or assessment of K–12 online learning due to the new nature of

this style of educational programming.

Student, Parent, and School Administrator Experiences With Online Learning

According a U.S. Department of Education (2010) report on the evaluation of

practices in online learning, “Distance learning outcomes were less positive when

instructor involvement was low, with effects becoming more positive, up to a point, as

26

instructor involvement increased” (p. 74). The report also noted, “Educators making

decisions about online learning need rigorous research examining the effectiveness of

online learning for different types of students and subject matter as well as studies of the

relative effectiveness of different online learning practices” (U.S. Department of

Education, 2010, p. 75). These findings point toward the relative newness of the field of

online learning in K–12 and how frequent communication and engagement is important

both in the traditional and cyber classroom settings.

Moreover, Cavanaugh et al. (2004) explained that some “students may feel

isolated, parents may have concerns about children’s social development, students with

language difficulties may experience a disadvantage in text-heavy online environment,

and subjects requiring physical demonstrations of skills” (p. 5) aforementioned areas may

cause problems with the completion of these assignments and tasks in a fully online

environment. Cavanaugh et al. (2004) also stated that K–12 districts are continuing to

develop the practice of online learning because the field is quite new to these schools and

districts. Cavanaugh et al. (2004) mentioned that certain content areas can be rather

difficult to navigate in an online setting, specifically, “Virtual school student scores in

mathematics at grades, 3, 6, 9, and 12, and the sciences at grades 6 and 9 lagged

significantly behind scores of non-virtual school students” (p. 6 as cited in Scholllie,

2001). Cavanaugh et al. (2004) also specified that teacher quality and the frequency of

communication between students and teachers is vital to online academic outcomes (p. 6

as cited in Kozma et al., 2000). Cavanaugh et al. (2004) also cautioned that K–12 school

leaders be careful not to underestimate the difference between online learning in higher

education or adult learning versus the level of structure needed for younger learners.

27

Glass (2009) conveyed that “one measure of effectiveness of virtual schooling is

whether it has won acceptance broadly among, say, parents of K–12 students whose

children might be exposed to online teaching” (p. 6), as this reception influences parental

and, likely, student satisfaction. Glass (2009) described that a survey conducted by Phi

Delta Kappa/Gallup in 2001 and 2007 displayed an “increasing acceptance of online

teaching-learning in small amounts, but an increased skepticism of virtual schooling

constituting the bulk of a student’s high school education” (p. 6). Glass (2009) also

explained that schools will be able to offer higher quality learning environments online as

technology continues to develop in the coming years. Glass (2009) noted that the

“legitimacy of the credits earned via virtual schooling will depend in large part on the

legitimacy of the process by which assignments and tests are known to be the work of the

individual receiving the credit or diploma” (p. 13), and that the evaluation of cyber

programming through some type of formal process will be key to gaining credibility

moving forward.

Barbour, Siko, Sumara, and Simuel-Everage (2012) specified that online students

have been unsuccessful due to factors such as “not understanding the course content, and

if these students also feel that their online teachers are difficult to contact, and that the

asynchronous course content is poorly designed” (p. 14). Barbour et al. (2012) also

concluded that “similar to well-designed supports for face to face courses, virtual

education need(s) to be provided with systemic support for K–12 students learning in

online environments” (p. 14).

Other online research has asserted that “course and instructional design are

important considerations for online learning effectiveness” as a way to develop better

28

cyber programming (Patrick & Powell, 2009, p. 8). Patrick and Powell (2009) also

reported that “interaction is the heart of online learning. Teachers have reported that their

interactions with students, parents and colleagues were more often focused on teaching

and learning in online courses than in the traditional setting” (p. 8, as cited in Weiner,

2003). It is important to note that this study is just one representation of the online

experience that this group of participants had. Patrick and Powell (2009) cited another

study from the National Survey of Student Engagement in 2008, which reported that

students can achieve “better use of higher order thinking skills, integrative thinking and

reflective learning” (p. 8) and grasp concepts in more depth than their traditional in-class

counterparts. This particular research and literature demonstrated a strong positive

relationship between online learning and student performance.

Student experiences. Huett et al. (2008) explained that “although K–12 students

can benefit from the independence offered by virtual schooling, this same independence

has the potential for negative impact” (p. 2); thus, students with high levels of motivation

and individual achievement are more likely to perform well in online settings. Huett et al.

(2008) noted that successful online students possess “autonomy, metacognition, self-

regulatory skills, positive self-efficacy, motivation, and internal locus of control” (p. 64

as cited in Cavanaugh et al., 2004). Students with these skill sets are more likely to report

positive experiences during their time as online students, making parents more likely to

explain satisfaction with the program as well. Rice (2006) explained:

Students across studies appear to enroll in online courses for similar reasons.

Convenience, flexibility, in scheduling, credit recovery, accelerated learning

opportunities, conflict avoidance, and the ability to take courses offered at a local

school are just some of the reasons identified in the research. (p. 434, as cited in

Mills, 2003; Tunison & Noonan, 2001)

29

Parent experiences. Riley (2011) noted that parents and students chose to attend

cyber programming because “the local brick- and-mortar school down the street is not

meeting their needs” (p. 1). Also, online courses afford students with challenging

schedules flexible learning options and offer “a way to avoid negative influences or

bullying. Kids with special needs make up 10% of K12’s student population” (p. 1).

Riley (2011) explained that a variety of reasons led parents to choose online options such

as harassment, scheduling concerns, and student interest.

Research on K–12 online student outcomes and experiences. Huett et al.

(2008) explained that “the majority of research on student success in online courses has

been conducted in higher education settings” (as cited in O’Dwyer et al., 2007;

Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005, p. 65). Huett et al. (2008) also stated that most research

that has been conducted on K–12 online learners pertains to students in grades 6–12—a

product of the relatively new status of online learning in the K–12 setting. O’Dwyer

(2007) reported that her study of Algebra I online students found that they “enjoyed using

technology to learn math, and enjoyed the new learning experience,” and that the most

helpful components of the experience were “graphing calculators, Graphire 2 Digital

Tablet hardware, as well as animated tutorials and e-mail communications” (p. 302).

O’Dwyer (2007) found that the use of a blended learning option for students was

beneficial, further commenting that students who received delayed feedback from

teachers felt disengaged and were more likely to perform poorly in the courses. O’Dwyer

(2007) noted that there is a “continuing need for sound empirical evidence about the

30

effects of these programs on teaching and learning outcomes, and in particular on student

performance” (p. 304).

Rice (2006) further stated that students taking online coursework needed direct

and clear instruction due to the intellectual development processes of youth. Rice (2006)

explained that in research conducted by Tunison and Noonan (2001):

The most common student response to the question of benefits of a virtual school

course was their appreciation of the autonomy and freedom. Although most

students identified the teacher as the ultimate source of information, many

students enjoyed the opportunity to work on their own. (p. 436)

Rice (2006) also found in research by Weiner (2003) that “a high degree of student-

teacher interaction, including feedback and summaries to students, are a necessity in the

virtual classroom, otherwise students felt ignored, lonely and lost in their courses” (p.

436).

Lee and Figueroa (2012) explained that when considering online learning

practices and programmatic success, “motivation is a key to success not only in a face to

face learning environment, but also in online courses” (p.23, as cited in Weiner, 2003).

Lee and Figueroa (2012) stated, “Motivation is a crucial factor to the other successful

components in distance education, such as time management and active participation” (p.

23). Moreover, Lee and Figueroa (2012) discussed that “self-motivation needs to be taken

into consideration prior to enrolling in a virtual course. Commitment and support are

important for motivation” (p. 23). Other factors, such as peer interaction, time

management, healthy living habits, and learner responsibility, were mentioned as key

components to student success in the online setting (Lee & Figueroa, 2012). Isolation and

lack of communication were noted as barriers to student learning, but Lee and Figueroa

31

(2012) explained that “active participation can lessen the perceived distance by

communicating with peers and teachers frequently. This also helps to overcome the

feeling of isolation” (p. 24).

Student perceptions and recommendations. Smart and Cappel (2006) wrote

that “research can continue to explore how and when online instruction is most

effective,” as well as determine “motivational factors affecting students” in courses

(p.215) Smart and Cappel (2006) also noted that “future research is to compare student

learning outcomes between classes using a blended learning approach versus those using

traditional instruction” (p. 215).

Online at-risk learning. Archambault et al. (2010) determined, “Virtual

education institutions need to recognize what makes learners at risk in order to

accommodate them” (p. 18), and that many first-time online learners may fall into the at-

risk category, as noted by Barbour (2009). Archambault et al. (2010) concluded that

schools need to “explore how the identification of at-risk students affects the attrition and

course completion rates in virtual schools and what measures virtual schools take once a

student has been identified as being at-risk” (p. 19), as well as determine what types of

online materials, styles, models, and platforms support learning, along with incorporating

best practices for student engagement with virtual learning communities and schools.

Archambault, Janosz, Morizot, and Pagani (2009) remarked:

School-based interventions should address the multiple facets of high school

experiences to help adolescents successfully complete their schooling. Creating a

positive social-emotional learning environment promises better adolescent

achievement and, in turn, will contribute to a healthier lifestyle which could be

applied to struggling students in the online setting. (p. 408)

32

Archambault et al. (2009) also mentioned that students who have difficulty with “rule

compliance, interest in school, and willingness to learn” (p.4) experience challenges with

behavior within the school setting, which would often apply to an online environment as

well. Furthermore, Archmabault et al. (2009) stated that interventions and engagement

practices must be employed on a regular basis to support those with potential dropout

risk.

Martinez (2003) found that “e-learning requires a higher degree of self-

motivation, self-directed learning and greater persistence and commitment from the

learner. These requirements can create the serious problem of high attrition rates and

costs if not recognized and managed strategically” (p. 7). Additionally, Martinez (2003)

explained that “personalization complements and extends more traditional approaches,

including attrition management plans” (p.7) and is a vital component for student success

in the online setting. Martinez (2003) also remarked that some “non-traditional attrition

studies are considering the impact of psychological factors on persistence” (p. 7).

Martinez (2003) summarized by stating that e-learning, or online learning programs,

should seek to understand the entire student to evaluate one’s level of persistence to

support at-risk learners.

Types of Online Programming

Rice (2006) categorized a number of online learning options and systems

throughout the country with the following description: statewide programs are those

where “students take individual courses but are enrolled in a physical school or cyber

school within the state”; district-level supplemental programs are those that “are typically

operated by autonomous districts and are typically not tracked by state agencies”; single-

33

district cyber schools “provide an alternative to the traditional face to face school

environment and are offered by individual districts for students within that district”;

multidistrict cyber schools “are operated within individual school districts but enroll

students from other school districts within the state”; and, lastly, cyber charters, which

“are chartered within a single district but can draw students from across the state. In

many cases they are connected in some way to commercial curriculum providers” (p. 5).

Effective online program practices. Pape et al. (2006) explained that successful

“online programs take seriously the need to measure the success of their programs

through extensive data collection,” but that “the lack of common measures demonstrates

the challenge for parents and students who are making education choices, and policy

makers responsible for overseeing these programs” (p. 57). This statement confirms the

need for formalized evaluation processes and procedures that identify best practices in the

field. Pape et al. (2006) found that “there is no general agreement about what to measure

and how to measure” (p. 58) when considering the online course evaluation process and

what are ideal benchmarks for schools and districts to strive toward.

Pape et al. (2006) asserted that “carefully tracking who is teaching the course is

also important,” such as those teachers who are highly qualified or have previously taught

the course; they also determined that the online student’s “persistence of effort matters,”

and that these students must be engaged in the provided content (p. 57).

Burgess-Watkins (2011) explained that quality online courses and programs

consisted of monitoring teacher effectiveness as well as working cooperatively with

parents with dependable involvement in their child’s academics. Burgess-Watkins (2011)

stated that:

34

During observations, the teacher and program manager simultaneously view

various portions of the courses management system and discuss instructional

practice, student progress, and student-teacher communication to make certain

that quality teaching and learning are taking place within the virtual classroom. (p.

6)

Burgess-Watkins (2011) explained that parents should be actively aware of student log-

ins, passwords, assignments, academic schedules, and teacher contacts, and should be

sure to follow up with their child regarding coursework on a weekly or daily basis to

ensure compliance since K–12 online education deals with developing learners.

Rice (2009) found that the implementation of online learning programs should

attempt to “develop organized evaluation systems that examine multiple aspects of

distance learning to facilitate consistent data collection” (p. 174), including areas such as

attendance, retention, and student outcomes. Rice (2009) determined that further research

is needed regarding:

Special needs and at-risk learners in distance education environments…[and]

funding for training and require that distance educators possess the specific

qualities necessary for success. This includes training for administrators as well as

teachers. As growth continues, the need for administrators with leadership and

evaluation in online environments will only intensify. (pp. 174–175)

Lee and Figueroa (2012) stated that communication practices such as “discussion boards,

e-mail, telephone, Skype, instant messaging, and any other forms of communication tools

available” (p. 25) should be readily accessible for students on a regular basis to ensure

optimal student engagement and participation. This practice ideally fosters relationship

building between teacher and student, increasing opportunities for academic success. Lee

and Figueroa (2012) reported that students should be very familiar with how to access

online content. Lee and Figueroa (2012) stated that “assessment tools that determine a

student’s readiness for virtual classes often include questions about computer access and

35

skill level” (p. 25), thus supporting the concept of a required entry level skill set prior to

taking online or cyber courses in the K–12 setting.

Lee and Figueroa (2012) explained, “Parents are the most important teachers to

students. Students are more likely to benefit from a virtual course if their parents are

active in their virtual learning process” (p. 26). Lee and Figueroa (2012) stated that

optimal online courses should “be divided into very short modules that lead to mastery of

a skill,” and that “activities that build a community of learners should be present in

virtual courses” and contain “activities such as discussion posts, online study groups, and

collaborative projects [that] are considered to lead to successful work in an online

course” (p. 26).

Summary

School districts in various states are looking to curb the number of students opting

for online programming outside of their home district. The development of in-district

cyber courses seeks to address the expensive per pupil tuition costs that districts are

required to pay to cyber charter and charter schools. Recruitment and retention strategies

that are aligned with student and parent desires can lead to programmatic growth that

supports engaged student learning. However, further research is required in the area of

student, parent, and school administrator experience regarding K–12 online learning with

in-district programs. The primary goal of this research was to determine how the

experiences of school administrators, parents, and students might impact retention and

recruitment strategies concerning in-district cyber courses and programming. The extant

literature is limited regarding how the recent rise of cyber charter educational programs

has contributed to the establishment of in-district cyber school programming, and how

36

these in-district programs can understand the needs of parents and students in this

competitive online environment. Research and literature on the retention and recruitment

practices of in-district cyber programs is sparse and is certainly needed as more and more

districts seek to improve their current practice or establish their own online program to

combat the unsustainable problem of tuition payments to cyber charter programs.

37

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Throughout Pennsylvania and the United States, K–12 students are opting for a

flexible education that allows for a full cyber or blended learning school experience. Per

pupil tuition costs have continued to rise, and student enrollment in cyber charter schools

has been on an upward trend over the past five years. As the demand for online

programming increases, various K–12 cyber charter programs are expanding while

simultaneously requiring public schools to support tuition costs for their programs.

Therefore, this research aimed to determine how public school districts can understand

and implement online programming that is attractive to—and supportive of—student and

parental needs or demands, specifically in Pennsylvania.

The questions below provide direction toward the goal of this case study.

Primary Question:



Subquestions:





retention?

Research Design and Rationale

Because the research required various interviews with school administrators,

students, and parents, a qualitative approach with semistructured interviews was utilized.

38

The case study approach is most aligned with this particular research because—as

Creswell (2012) has noted—it “is an in-depth exploration of a bounded system (e.g.,

activity, event, process, or individuals) based upon extensive data collection” (p.465).

Additionally, “The case may be a single individual, several individuals separately or in a

group, a program, events, or activities” (Creswell, 2012, p. 465). This particular case

study focused on a group of individuals involved with the district’s in-district cyber

program. Administrators who had designed and implemented, or were implementing, the

program were interviewed, as well as current high school students who were enrolled,

had been enrolled, or who had left the program but subsequently returned to the program.

Parents of the students were invited to participate via email. These individuals provided

the researcher with the thick description needed to carry out a descriptive case study. The

researcher conducted these semistructured interviews with the goal of understanding their

experiences regarding retention and recruitment at an in-district cyber program. Merriam

(2009) has stated that the goal of a descriptive case study is to “provide a rich, ‘thick’

description of the phenomenon under study” (p. 43) that allows for a deep understanding

of participants or information analyzed in the research.

The descriptive case study approach aligned with the concept of understanding in-

district recruiting and retention strategies and how participant experiences helped guide

understanding of online programming or development. By utilizing a descriptive case

study, the researcher sought a thorough understanding of participants’ experiences within

the unique context of an in-district cyber program. According to Creswell (2012),

qualitative research looks to “identify our participants and sites on purposeful sampling,

based on places and people that can best help us understand our central phenomenon” (p.

39

205). The school superintendent, director of online learning, and business administrator

shared experiences as they related to strategies that retain or recruit online learners to

their original public school. Interviews with students who were currently enrolled in the

in-district program as well students who had previously attended a different cyber

program outside the district were asked to participate. Parents of these students were also

asked to share their experiences through interviews. Via interviews with students and

parents, the researcher was able to determine factors or commonalities associated with

the perceived success or quality of district cyber programming or what components made

the in-district program more appealing.

Additional research into other populations beyond school administrators such as

students and parents provided insight into effective strategies that recruited students back

from cyber charter programs to their original home school. Face-to-face interviews were

conducted with each participant. The researcher was prepared to offer the option of

telephone, Skype, or video conference, but none of these options was necessary. All

participants preferred to utilize the face-to-face format. The participants signed the

consent and/or assent forms. The researcher provided a copy of the consent and/or assent

form to each participant. It was important to document each participant’s experience with

cyber programming in order to determine the best course of action as it related to student

experience, program construction, and practicality.

Site and Population

The participating district was located in Pennsylvania, approximately 55 to 60

miles north of Philadelphia. The district was comprised of a student population of

approximately 1,800 students from grades K–12 in a rural region of the county. The

40

district was surrounded by vast acres of protected or preserved space. In this farming

community, small businesses often involved in construction and landscaping were

scattered throughout the region. The district had a rural-distant code (42) distinction as

noted by the National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Rural-distant is defined as

“more than 5 miles but less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanized area, as well as

rural territory that is more than 2.5 miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban

cluster” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014).

At the time of this study, the district had three elementary schools with grades

kindergarten through fifth, one middle school with grades sixth through eighth, and one

high school with grades ninth through 12th. The researcher interviewed school

administrators, students, and parents in this district with the goal of determining how

districts recruit back to or retain students in the current in-district cyber program offered.

The researcher spoke with the site’s director of online learning and inquired as to which

students and parents were presently participating in the in-district cyber program. The

researcher received a list of email addresses from the director of online learning. The

researcher sent an email invitation asking parents and students if they would be willing to

take part in the interview process regarding their experiences with the in-district cyber

program and, if pertinent, their experience with other cyber charter programs. The

researcher did not have any students or parents that required a letter mailed to their home.

Student and parent participants were neither screened nor evaluated prior to participating,

and there was no knowledge on the part of the researcher regarding their satisfaction or

dissatisfaction with the program. Specifically, the students interviewed were of high

school age, and were best able to comprehend the nature of the questions, as they had had

41

recent experiences with the cyber or the in-district online learning program offered.

Parents who participated in the study had children in grades 11 or 12, which is the same

age and grade grouping of students involved in the study. The district entered its fourth

year of active in-district cyber school programming during the course of the study and

was in the beginning stages of providing blended learning opportunities for a number of

students in the district.

Rationale

This school district was chosen based on its development of an in-district cyber

program. The district as it was at the time of this study practiced collaboration with

online content service providers and Learning Management System (LMS) models, and

noted some level of success at recruiting students back to their home district. The success

and advancement of the cyber program regarding cost savings to the district and student

exposure to online content courses was another important component of this study. The

online learning program at the district employed a director who provided online learning

support beyond the traditional scope of K–12 schools. The expertise of various school

leaders in the district provided insight into the planning, recruitment, retention, and

implementation process as they related to online learning in public schools. Additionally,

student and parental participation in this study was of the utmost importance in

considering the personal and educational reasons why students chose to stay or return to

their home district for online or cyber education coursework. Parents and students from

the district possessed the unique experience of being involved in in-district cyber learning

coursework and classes.

42

Population Description

The researcher, by selecting current full and partial cyber students and parents of

full and partial cyber students as well administrators involved with the development and

oversight of the program, accessed average examples of participants who represented the

in-district online learning experiences.

The researcher selected the participant groups below in order to represent the

experiences of students and parents involved in the in-district cyber program that had

both full cyber and partial cyber educational interactions. The researcher also selected the

three administrators based on their extensive knowledge of the in-district cyber program

from its inception through the current operation, while possessing knowledge of retention

and recruitment strategies as well as financial considerations of the program and per pupil

costs.

The type of sampling done in a study such as this one—which considered

participant groups—is designated as purposeful sampling, as noted by Merriam (2009),

because the researcher sought to interview students, parents, and administrators within

the context of an in-district cyber program that served full and partial cyber students and

sought to understand their experiences about the program for programmatic evaluation

and possible improvement. Merriam (2009) mentioned that within purposeful sampling,

various subgroups emerge—one which is defined as a typical sample that “is selected

because it reflects the average person, situation, or instance of the phenomenon of

interest” (p. 78).

This set of participants consisted of high school students in 11th and 12th grade

who had completed (within the last year) or were enrolled in an online course in the

43

district. A total of 12 students participated in this study. Twelve students were

representative of the number of students who agreed to participate in the study.

Furthermore, two to five high school students were actively participating as full cyber

students. The researcher also sought to provide an equal balance of partial cyber students

to the study to record their experiences and note similarities and differences. Students

who had taken or were presently taking online coursework within the in-district program

were asked to participate in the study. The study looked at partial cyber students, as well

as students who had been full cyber students at some point over the past year or longer.

This meant that full cyber students take all of their courses virtually and partially cyber

students, which described students that take online courses and also attend face-to-face or

in-person courses at the high school. The researcher interviewed both full cyber and

partial cyber students in order to gain an understanding of the similarities and differences

in these participants’ experiences with the in-district cyber program. Also, full cyber and

partial cyber students who had previously attended a cyber charter program were part of

the study, specifically in the interview process. Again, these participants were students in

grades 11 through 12.

Parents of students who had taken online coursework with the in-district program

were recruited to participate in the research. Five parent participants took part in the

study. Some of the parents in this study had students that were both full cyber and partial

cyber students as well as just partial cyber students. Parents were able to provide

feedback on how their student performed as a full cyber or partial cyber student. These

parents had or had had children who participated in secondary online learning within the

in-district program or with another provider. Some parents also had a student presently

44

taking an online course during the course of the study. The researcher was fortunate to be

able to meet with parents and students who had experience with the in-district online

program as well as with other online educational programs such as cyber charter schools.

Students who were previously cyber charter students were able to report their experiences

in comparison to the in-district program. Students and parents both signed consent or

assent forms prior to any type of participation in the study. Students answered

semistructured questions via face-to-face interviews. These meetings and questions were

recorded with written permission and the acknowledgement of interviewee and parent or

guardian. Five parents participated in one-on-one interviews and answered semistructured

questions in face-to-face conversations.

School administrators asked to participate in this study were: the school

superintendent, director of online learning, and the business administrator. The three

administrators selected for this study had extensive knowledge of the problematic

scenarios associated with students choosing to attend cyber charter programs and were

able to answer specific questions about financial considerations along with retention and

recruitment strategies and outcomes. Each of these administrators was actively involved

in the development, oversight, and analysis of the in-district cyber program and provided

feedback regarding planning objectives, financial considerations, student demographics,

short- and long-term objectives, data analysis, student academic performance, costs to the

district, and other essential components that emerged during the semistructured interview

process. Specifically, the school superintendent was selected due to the nature of the

planning and implementation of the program, and his understanding of the importance of

creating a competitive online learning environment and addressing cost concerns. The

45

director of online learning was included in the study to provide experiences about student

retention and recruitment, and his knowledge of program offerings and strategic planning

for future in-district cyber programs or coursework. The business administrator was able

to assess cost savings and projected cost savings, which were a major factor in the

creation of in-district cyber programming in this study and likely in other school districts

in Pennsylvania and around the country.

The researcher decided not to include or interview elementary-age students or

parents of elementary students who had or were currently participating in the in-district

cyber program. The researcher determined that the experiences of elementary students

and parents may be difficult to accurately record and analyze; and the complex nature of

the questions might have made it challenging for elementary students to adequately

answer. Also, the elementary program had been in operation for only two years compared

to five years at the high school level. The researcher was not specifically studying cyber

charter schools and their programs because the researcher’s goal was to analyze public

in-district cyber programming experiences. The researcher was also not studying large

urban and suburban districts due to vast differences in program design, as he would not

find the data in this research to useful.

Data Collection and Site Access

The overall goal of gathering data from the school administrators, parents, and

students was to determine the best source of evidence concerning how in-district cyber

programs can retain or combat the exodus of students to cyber charter programs. The

research recorded the experiences of full cyber and partial cyber students and the parents

of these students. The school administrators served as participants based on their

46

experience with financial outcomes and considerations regarding an in-district cyber

program as well as their understanding of K–12 in-district recruitment and retention

practices. The researcher received approval for the study from the school superintendent.

The researcher contacted the school administrators, students, and parents who had

experience with the district’s in-district online program and courses regarding

participation in the interview process. The researcher invited each school administrator,

student, and parent that met the established criteria via email. Thirty-five possible

participants were invited via email. The potential participants responded via email if they

were willing to participate or not. The researcher provided interview date opportunities

that best supported the schedule of participants. The researcher held interviews at the

district’s high school with students and parents at times and locations that were

convenient for the participants. The researcher held interviews with school administrators

at the central office building. The researcher did not need to conduct Skype or telephone

interviews with participants, as face-to-face meetings were possible for all willing

participants. The researcher also provided several weeks’ notice prior to a participant’s

interview. Some participants changed their interview date as needed, and participants

were not subject to any penalties as a result of a date change. No participant decided to

remove him- or herself from the study. The researcher explained via email and in person

that opting out with no penalty was an option for participants.

Via email, the researcher stated that the goal of this research was to document the

experiences of the students, parents, and administrators that had taken—or were presently

taking—part in the district’s in-district cyber program. The researcher provided the

option of a gift card incentive of 10 dollars to students, parents, and administrators in the

47

email describing the study. Participants were not required to accept the gift card. Consent

and/or assent forms were required of all participants, as detailed in the initial email as

well. Face-to-face interviewees received a consent or assent form that they signed in the

presence of the researcher. The researcher collected the signed document. No participants

took part in the online interview option. The researcher then filed the consent and assent

form documents in a locked desk drawer or compartment. Sources of data came from two

formalized processes: semistructured questions and artifact review.

Interviews were conducted in person, but phone or Skype was offered as an option as

well. The interviews were recorded (the interview protocol is located in the appendix

section of this study). The researcher posed several research questions depending upon

the participant group (see Table 1). The researcher then followed up with several probing

questions that sought further details about student, parent, and administrator in-district

cyber experiences. The probing questions are in Tables 2 and 3.

48

Table 1

Research Questions

Research questions Research

methods

Data sources Rationale

What are the experiences and

perceptions of administrators,

students, and parents involved

with the in-district program?

Semistructured

interviews

Individual

interviews with

school

administrators/

parents / students

Qualitative

interviews

provide in-

depth insight

to the

participants

experience

Why are students remaining

with the district’s cyber

program?

Why are students returning to

the district’s cyber program?

What are the factors that

influence a student to either

remain or return to the

district’s cyber program?

What role do teachers have

regarding student persistence

and student retention?

Table 2

Probing Questions Asked to School Administrators

Probing questions Research

methods

Data sources Rationale

What kinds of programs can school districts

put into place that address the financial

implications of expanding cyber charter

programs throughout Pennsylvania?

Semistru

ctured

interview

s

School

administrato

rs

Qualitative

interviews

provide in-

depth

insight to

the

participant

s

experience

What kinds of cyber/online programs can be

put into place that attract students back to

their home district and retain current students

considering cyber/online educational options?

What factors are most influential regarding

the retention and recruitment of students in

their K–12 in-district cyber school program?

49

Table 3

Probing Questions Asked to Students and Parents

Consent and assent were granted by participants as they related to recording audio

or saving data and responses in surveys or written interview responses. Participants were

informed that the researcher recorded the interviews utilizing an audio recording device

with the iPhone application REV and laptop computerized software. The recorded

interviews were sent to TranscribeMe! for transcription service. The recorded interviews

did not contain the names of the interviewer or interviewee. If they were accidently stated

by the interviewee, the names were removed from transcription. The recordings were

password protected and not accessible to anyone other than the researcher and

professionals at the TranscribeMe! transcription service. TranscribeMe! reported the

following statement regarding confidential information and the safety of the audio

recordings submitted to their service:

TranscribeMe! will use the Confidential Information solely for the purpose of

providing the TranscribeMe! Service to you (the “Permitted Purpose”).

Probing questions Research

methods

Data

sources

Rationale

What decision making process led you to

return to your home school or remain at your

district for cyber/online coursework?

Semistru

ctured

interview

s

Students /

parents

Qualitative

interviews

provide in-

depth

insight to

the

participants

experience

Can the in-district cyber program vastly

improve the retention/recruitment of students

with their own cyber programming?

Was the cyber course quality of home district

programming versus cyber charter courses a

factor in the decision making process?

50

TranscribeMe! will not without your prior consent, disclose to any third party

your Confidential Information, other than furnishing such Confidential

Information to our directors, officers, employees, agents, consultants, contractors,

representatives or affiliated entities (collectively, “Associated Persons”) who need

to have access to such Confidential Information in connection with the Permitted

Purpose. (“TranscribeMe!”, 2014, para.12)

Permitted purpose refers to the reason for using the TranscribeMe! Service, which is to

receive a written transcript of typed interviews that will be returned to the client who paid

for the service. Additionally, confidential information refers to audio recordings,

passwords, or other related log-in information created or submitted by the user or client.

Participants were informed and notified in writing about the recording and transcription

process. Potential risks for the participants might result from stolen audio files on the

researcher’s computer or cellular phone, both of which were password protected. This

potential risk has not occurred. The audio files could be stolen from TranscribeMe! as

well, but the audio files were also password protected by the user and transcription

company. This potential risk has not occurred. The content discussed during the interview

process regarded specific programmatic in-district cyber experiences and did not contain

personal names or specific identities that could be used against the participant. The

researcher edited out any potentially identifiable information. The benefits of

participation in the study were as follows: all participants received a gift card unless they

declined the gift card, and the results of this research study provided feedback on areas of

growth and affirmed strengths for the in-district program, which in turn provided

information that could be used to improve the district’s current practice. Possible

additional benefits might result from student, parent, and administrator reflection on the

51

in-district cyber program and how this type of learning was supportive to students’

growth, parents’ understanding, and administrators’ plans for future programming.

The researcher also evaluated artifacts or materials made available by the district

that related to in-district cyber programming. Artifacts included cyber charter, in-district

enrollment, academic, behavioral, attendance, and demographic information pertaining to

students who agreed to participate in the study as well as to strategic planning and the

evaluation of in-district processes and procedures. Students and parents who completed

consent and assent forms were informed in writing and in person that artifact information

pertaining to student records such as previous schools attended, behavioral and academic

issues, attendance, and demographics might be analyzed by the researcher to help support

the quality of the study. This artifact information was analyzed during the study.

Timelines related to this study are included in Tables 4 and 5.

52

Table 4

Dissertation Timeline

Action Date Descriptive details

Submit IRB 10/20/14 Completed entire submission process

IRB Approval (2

week minimum)

11/7/14 to

11/14/14

Made revisions and re-submitted

Organization for

Housing Data

ASAP

once IRB

is complete

perhaps:

11/14/14 to

11/21/14

11/21-

12/1/14

Data stored in the following places/areas:

a) Flash drive- will contain transcribed data

b) Password secure TranscribeMe!

(transcription)

c) Audio recording system on laptop

d) Backup Audio recording on tape

recorder

e) Signed consent forms printed/stored in

locked drawer

f) Verified and schedule access to artifact

in district office

g) Scheduled interviews with participants

Start field research 12/1/14-

12/8/14

12/8 -12/22

1/5/15-

1/12/15

Began artifact review in district office (1st time)

Conducted interviews with participants

Finished artifact review in district office (2nd

time)

Complete field

research

1/19/15 Finalized all research and data collection

Data analysis (e.g.,

coding)

1/20/15

1/26/15

2/2/15

Submitted audio or video (if utilizing Skype) to

TranscribeMe! for transcription service

Completed transcription

NVivo: program to support the coding and

analysis of qualitative interviews.

53

Table 4 (continued)

Action Date Descriptive details

Draft of Chapter 4 2/9-

2/16/15

2/23-

3/2/15

Began draft

Completed draft

Draft of Chapter 5 3/2-

3/16/15

3/23-

3/30/15

Began draft

Completed draft

Response and revision

of 4&5 with SP

3/23-

4/6/15

Submitted to supervising professor

Completed

dissertation draft to

SP

4/6-

4/13/15

Submitted to supervising professor

Revisions of

dissertation – you and

SP

Mid-April Completed various corrections/updates

Dissertation Orals

(“defense”)

May, 11th

2015

Completed defense

54

Table 5

Data Collection and Analysis Timeline

Data collection Week/Dates

Schedule interviews:

1) Administrators

2) Parents

3) Students

Gather cyber documents/artifacts

Meet with school district officials

Review materials and take notes

Begin interviews:

1) Administrators

2) Parents

3) Students

Revisit/gather cyber documents

Meet with school district officials

Review materials and take notes

1st/2

nd week of November 2014

1st/2

nd/3rd week of November 2014

1st/2

nd/3

rd/4

th week of December 2014

1st/2

nd week of January 2015

Data analysis

1) Interviews

Submit audio recordings to

TranscribeMe! for transcription

service

2) Review

Analyze transcripts for themes and

code the interview transcripts with a

computer program QSR NVivo.

3) Compare table/diagram of

administrator, student and parent

responses, themes and codes.

4) Write summary of findings

including interviews and artifact

documentation

1st/2

nd/week of January 2015

3rd/4th week of January 2015

1st/2

nd/3

rd week of February 2015

1st/2nd week of March

3rd/4th week of March

1st week of April

55

Data Analysis

Upon the conclusion of the semistructured one-to-one in-person interviews, which

were seven to 15 minutes in length and recorded via iPhone and the application Rev,

along with a laptop audio system, the researcher sent the recorded file to TranscribeMe!

for transcription service. The researcher categorized, coded, and analyzed themes from

the typed transcripts prepared by TranscribeMe! The researcher used the computer

program QSR NVivo, a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software program that

helps support the identification of themes and results from open-ended interviews.

Creswell (2013) noted that the use of a computer program allows for the retrieval of

specific phrasing, code labels, and patterns, which are important for understanding

commonalities among participants.

The researcher reviewed each interview and coded responses based upon common

themes that emerged. The researcher recorded how often and in what context the

common themes were mentioned and detailed how these responses were indicative of in-

district cyber programmatic strengths and weaknesses. The researcher utilized the QSR

NVivo computer program, which analyzed the content of the participant interviews and

provided the most commonly used terms, phrases, and topics to the researcher. The

researcher also manually coded each participant interview. The researcher created a series

of tangible charts for each individual participant as well as according to the question

asked of the participant. It was readily observable that the QSR NVivo findings were

very similar to the hand-coded data. The researcher used both hand coding and QSR

NVivo to ensure that the emerging themes were consistent and accurate representations

of the interviewed participants. The researcher created separate categories or sections for

56

each type of participant group, which consisted of administrators, students, and parents.

The researcher created a chart that displays each group and patterns, themes, or codes that

emerged. Through the use of tables and diagrams, the researcher created categories

pertaining to teacher quality, retention/recruitment, participant perceptions, support,

flexibility, social interactions, and cost/financials or other considerations and findings

relating to in-district cyber programming. The researcher also analyzed if any similarities

were present among the three groups of participants. The researcher developed categories

and subcategories that specifically addressed themes that were more specific and more

common when comparing the three groups of administrators, students, and parents.

Merriam (2009) has noted that “categories should be responsive to the purpose of the

research” and “categories are the answers to your research questions” (p. 185). The

researcher narrowed the categories or themes down to five to seven primary categories

that best represented the most common and valuable information regarding in-district

cyber retention, recruitment, and financial content.

During the course of the coding process, the researcher also utilized “reflective

remarks” and “marginal remarks,” as explained by Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 67), in

order to best organize the responses of each participant. The reflective remarks were

helpful for providing context when describing and clarifying the meaning behind various

participant and quoted responses. Marginal remarks were also used when hand coding

each of the interviews, as such details greatly aided the organization and tracking of how

often particular comments were made. The researcher found that the topic of advertising

emerged rather clearly through the use of marginal remarks and became somewhat

interwoven into the responses of many parents and students with regard to suggestions

57

for improving cyber programming and exposure within the school district community.

Marginal remarks were essential for the researcher to determine how often a particular

theme was present and what particular questions tended to elicit certain responses.

Additionally, the researcher used “pattern coding,” as noted by Miles and Huberman

(1994, p. 69), to identify the most frequent and meaningful topics identified by the

participants, which in turn became the themes. Pattern coding also helped track and

record the number of references related to each theme within several charts and were

found to be repeated topics, which brought forth the specific themes described in this

study.

Artifacts

The researcher also reviewed documentation from the district’s central office

regarding in-district and cyber charter enrollment information. Documents reviewed were

district records of students and the specific cyber program they attended or were

attending. Student artifacts analyzed included: student demographics, academic and

behavioral materials, and attendance information. This documentation was found through

the school district’s student management system, PowerSchool and PowerTeacher.

PowerSchool and PowerTeacher served as a storing house for all student information that

the school district must track and record. PowerSchool allows for the organization and

storing of all pertinent information, whereas PowerTeacher allows teachers to enter in

grades, take attendance, compose notes, contact parents, and more. Other documentation

reviewed pertained to financial records of cost savings or records of costs associated with

students attending cyber programming outside of their home district or in-district setting.

These financial records were maintained by the business office of the school district and

58

were reviewed several times a year to ensure accuracy for budgetary purposes. These

documents were also subject to audits by state and local officials as the in-district cyber

program was, of course, under the umbrella of the entire public school district. The

purpose of this review was to determine if any patterns were currently present among

students and families who chose to attend an in-district cyber or cyber charter program.

The research examined any relationships among student behavior, attendance, academic

performance, and participation in the in-district cyber program. The researcher also

reviewed any strategic planning documentation that outlined the process for retention and

recruitment of students while analyzing the best practices and/or areas in need of

improvement. The strategic planning documents consisted mostly of memos, meeting

minutes, letters, as well as long- and short-term goals regarding the implementation and

growth of the in-district cyber program. The researcher organized and included a written

summary of the findings in order to provide additional insight as to why students and

families chose to participant in online learning in and out of their home district.

Ethical Considerations

When interviewing school administrators, parents, and students, the researcher

carefully considered each individual’s privacy and rights. The researcher clearly stated

the intentions of the study and sought to be in compliance with the Institutional Review

Board (IRB). Creswell (2012) has cited various ethical concerns and provided strategies

to maintain district or student anonymity—such as refraining from citing the original

name while using research from multiple sources in order to prevent viewers of the report

from determining the origin of the findings. Creswell (2013) noted that “a researcher

protects the anonymity of the informants, for example, by assigning numbers or aliases to

59

individuals” (p. 174). Creswell (2012) explained that during action research and, in this

instance, a case study approach, “This close relationship between the researcher and

participants means that data collection cannot be coercive” (p. 588), which is of particular

note regarding interviews with students. Creswell (2012) further stated that “students or

participants (such as in one’s own classroom) can opt out of a study if they so desire

without being penalized” (p. 588). Additionally, Creswell (2012) noted:

Some of the ethical needs in collaborating with community participants are to

continually negotiate the purpose of the study, to consider how the results will be

used, and to involve participants in as many phases of the process of research as

possible. (p. 588)

Creswell (2013) also articulated that participants in research should be well aware of all

question intentions and refrain from any practice that could be construed as deceptive or

fraudulent in anyway. As for this study, because the researcher was an employee of the

district being studied, the researcher explicitly stated that student and parent participation

in the study would have no positive or negative bearing upon any social or academic

interaction or policy established by the school district. Participants received written

notification that they were able to withdraw from the study at any point without fear of

any academic, social, or other possible penalty due to the researcher being an employee

of the district being studied.

When interviewing students, the researcher received written permission from the

school district, parent, and student, especially if the student was under the age of 18. Two

students were 18 years of age. Without consent from parents and students, there are

potential legal ramifications as they relate to school–student confidentiality. Overall, it is

important to provide a detailed description of the research goals of the interviews to

60

participants (school administrators, parents, and students). All participants were informed

and gave consent regarding the audio recording of any/all interviews.

Creswell (2013) has also cautioned against the interviewer sharing “personal

experiences with participants” (p. 175), as doing so will more than likely minimize or

lessen the impact and amount of information acquired during the interviews. Another

potential issue that can arise during the interview process relates to “off the record”

comments made by participants (Creswell, 2013, p. 174). Creswell (2013) stated that

unofficial comments should be deleted because, if recorded in research, they could end

up negatively impacting participants.

61

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS & RESULTS

The purpose of this descriptive case study was to understand and analyze the

experiences of students, parents, and school administrators in an in-district cyber

academy program, while determining factors that influenced retention and recruitment of

students. By reviewing artifacts with the district office and conducting one-on-one

interviews with 20 participants in a semistructured format, the researcher was able to

identify several consistent themes: a) teacher quality, b) retention and recruitment, c)

program perception, d) support, e) flexibility, f) social interaction, and g) cost/financials.

Primary Question:



Subquestions:





retention?

Findings

The researcher coded by using the QSR NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis

software and by hand coding. The QSR NVivo 10 computer software was able to identify

common wording among the participant interviews and words or concepts that were

similar to other themes. The QSR NVivo 10 program provided a clear starting point of

possible themes that were reconfirmed by the hand coding results. The researcher hand

62

coded by printing all of the transcribed interviews and organizing them into sections

according to participant, question, and participant group. The researcher used notes—also

called marginal notes—on hard copies of the interviews to record repeated concepts that

later became the themes. Themes represent the most frequently stated concepts

mentioned by participants. Each thematic section contains information explaining the

number of references to the identified theme and an analysis of each participant’s

response. Table 6 presents the number of references per participant group, percentages

per participant group, and totals. Table 7 presents the emerging themes identified.

Table 6

Themes, Participant Responses, and Number of References

Participant

groups

Teacher

quality

Retention

and

recruitme

nt

Program

perceptio

n

Suppo

rt

Flexibi

lity

Social

interaction

Cost/fina

ncials

# % # % # % # % # % # % # %

School

administrat

ors (3) 20

5

4 8 30 4 15 3 12 0 0 2

1

3 7

1

0

0

Parents (5) 6

1

6 6 22 10 39 5 19 5

2

1 3

2

0 0 0

Students

(12) 11 3

0 13 48 12 46

1

8 69 19

7

9 10

6

7 0 0

Totals 37

1

0

0

27 10

0 26

10

0

2

6

10

0 24

1

0

0

15

1

0

0

7

1

0

0

63

Table 7

Emerging Themes

Teacher Quality

The researcher found that the concept of teacher quality was a common thread

through the interview process with administrators, students, and parents. There were 37

references to teacher quality, the largest recorded number compared to the other five

themes. Teacher quality was mentioned numerous times by school district administrators

as a key component of the in-district program success. Students felt that teacher feedback

was an essential element of their success in the online program, and several students

stated that district teachers performed in a superior manner compared to cyber charter or

non-in-district cyber programming. Parents also noted that they were pleased with in-

district teacher feedback and responsiveness, which also points to teacher quality as a

main contributor to a successful in-district cyber program. The following quotations are

Emerging themes

Teacher quality: 37 references

Retention/recruitment: 27 references

Program perception: 26 references

Support: 26 references

Flexibility: 24 references

Social interaction: 15 references

Individualize/options: 8 references

Cost/financials: 7 references

64

taken from one-on-one interviews with school administrators, parents, and students, and

best represent the theme of teacher quality.

Administrator Participant 1 remarked that teacher quality was a key component of

the in-district programmatic success both instructionally and financially. He added a

reference about how parents perceived the program to be of high quality due to the

utilization of in-district teachers:

We were going to create something that allows us to use our teachers that we

knew were good and that would deliver a cyber program, that there was a need

for students to have. Having our own program run by our teachers that didn’t

cost us 13, $14,000 per student to go to an outside cyber school. I think the

quality speaks to a lot of parents and I think they know that they’re getting the

same teachers that they would get if the student were here in school, but for

whatever reason they have to go to cyber. I think that’s what keeps the people

here. I think the quality. I think our Director of Online Learning, so I think he’s

done a great job in developing a program that keeps the kids. I think they could

come, there’s 1700 kids that are getting an education here with those teachers

and they get that experience and those teachers that are proven. We want them to

get our education from our teachers delivered with our standards, as opposed to

any state cyber school that may or may not have the same standards. I know that

our teachers are involved in communicating with the student, whether it be

through the online platform or through email.

Administrator Participant 2 also stated that the quality of the instruction provided by the

district teachers was a key factor of the in-district cyber program’s success and central to

retention and recruitment:

They want to maintain or return, stay in the district or return to the district is

because of the quality of the instruction. We take a lot of pride in our teaching

staff and we expect that our online teachers are teaching with the same strategies,

with the same remediation approaches, with the same level of support that they do

in their face to face classes.

Administrator Participant 3 explained that teacher accessibility and interaction with

students supported the program’s success:

65

The other piece that was important was interaction with their teachers, so having

students access their instruction in-house. They can, if they’re doing a blended

model, they can walk down the hall and visit their teacher with a question that

they have, as opposed to trying to contact a teacher that may be somewhere,

anywhere, really throughout the state. They’re being taught by teachers that

they’ve known for quite some time, they can visit those teachers. So it provides an

option to our homeschool families that they didn’t previously have. A teacher

recognizes where students are finding success and struggling in some aspects. As

long as there’s ongoing communication, and support, and guidance, whether it’s

online, or brick and mortar classroom, to me, there’s not a difference between

those models of instruction. From an educational standpoint, again, when our

students are able to talk with their teachers, and go visit them, and sit down and

understand a concept or ask a question, those are some of the tangible pieces that

go into creating an online program.

Parent Participant 3 mentioned that there was a level of difficulty establishing

consistent communication with the online teacher. This participant’s experience was

primarily with a cyber charter program not affiliated with the in-district program. This

participant noted that online learning requires self-motivation and teacher

encouragement. The response was in regard to the question, “What role do teachers have

regarding student persistence and student retention?”:

In our experience, very little. When we signed-up, we were told, someone would

talk to you all the time, there would be—that I wouldn’t be the one having

to...guide and prompt. And it wasn’t, we were kind of set up, promised things and

then left and I think if you’re a good self-motivator—it’s great—but I don’t know

a lot of 16, 15, 16 year-olds that are.

Parent Participant 5 found that courses not taught by in-district cyber teachers

were problematic due to the lack of consistent feedback:

If I had known there would be so little participation by the actual teachers in this

building, (due to taking courses outside of the district’s cyber program through a

third party provider) I probably wouldn’t have selected this program based upon

feedback and how confident I was that she was actually learning. Because

feedback is so important--especially with math. And it’s centered around

feedback, and it was frustrating, extremely frustrating--when you have a child

involved in their education. But yet, you have educators who are working with

your child and supposedly teaching your child and they don’t get the importance

66

of feedback (in reference to the third party cyber class provider). We need more

online classes taught by in-school teachers, instead of going out and putting our

faith in other programs, and we don’t. There was a lack of classes that she needed

to take to be able to--needed to take by home or in-district teachers. I came here

because I knew I wanted her to have the rigor. I wanted her to be challenged. So

If I knew at the time when I came here that it wasn’t so--there weren’t a lot of

classes being taught by in-district teachers, I probably would’ve made the

decision to look into another school.

Participant Student 1 noted that teacher interaction and involvement was

sufficient with the in-district cyber program:

I believe that the teachers’ involvement is good here at this school, and I also

believe that the parent involvement is also good due to the system that they have

set up. If you’re not passing a class, they give you a chance to fit and if you don’t

fix it, emails get sent.

Participant Student 3 explained that the in-district program was of good quality

with the inclusion of the traditional high school curriculum:

It’s a very solid program. And all of the teachers--at least in my experience and

from what I’ve heard, all the teachers who have cyber courses that they teach

along with their actual in-school curriculum, they all do a very good job of

managing their online courses and providing help for students. The district has a

very good cyber program. They’ve got a lot of different courses that you can take

online, and they’re all very well managed by responsible teachers that are really

on top of their game, and are very good at working with the online curriculum.

Student Participant 4 explained that teachers followed up with students about

assignments: “I would say they’re pretty high because they have a big involvement with

how you complete your assignments and when they’re due, and how they’re due.”

Student Participant 4 also noted the difference between in-district cyber and cyber charter

program response time and teacher accessibility:

I would say that the in-district schooling is a lot easier to use and a lot easier to

understand the concept because there is a teacher that I can go and ask and I

didn’t have to wait two weeks for them to get back and email me. And then at the

charter school, it was like, “I didn’t get back to you for two weeks,” except for

67

two weeks you still have keeping doing school, so then you move on and then

you’re confused.

Student Participant 8 found that knowing the in-district cyber teacher and taking

an online class in a familiar setting were helpful when adjusting to online learning. The

participant also found the class to be organized and not too difficult:

I think it’s pretty organized, and it’s not hard to--once you take one, you feel

pretty confident taking another one, because they’re all set in Blackboard. And

it’s really not that hard to figure out and follow through with it, so I feel that once

you’ve got one under your belt a student would feel confident taking another

course. Well, it was easier because it’s right there and I know the teachers who

are teaching the course. Also, I can easily set it up with my guidance counselor

and the credits would easily into my high school career.

Student Participant 9 stated that in-district cyber teachers were supportive of student

learning while allowing independent development of their online learning skills: “But I

think that they’re pretty good at being patient with the kids and understanding where

they’re coming from, that they’re teaching themselves and that they need to learn at their

own pace.”

Student Participant 10 found that feedback from in-district cyber teachers was of

high quality particularly compared to a cyber charter school: “Overall, it’s a very positive

feedback. You always get feedback on general things from other people. So, I think that’s

why I wouldn’t go back to a charter program, because I like it much more. It’s more

professional.”

Student Participant 11 stated that interactions with in-district cyber teachers were

positive and that teachers were knowledgeable and supportive:

When I came into school to talk to one of the teachers, it was good. They knew

what they were talking about, and they would try to influence me as much as

possible, to get the work done. It’s a good experience.

68

Summary. Upon review of quotations gathered from the interview process, it is

apparent that school administrators, students, and parents strongly value the importance

of teacher quality and prefer the utilization of school district teachers with the in-district

cyber program. Participants stated that in-district teachers provided frequent and helpful

feedback, were responsive to student and parent questions, and were available to meet

face to face. Participants from the student and parent group also stated that the quality of

in-district teachers was a factor in the decision-making process concerning returning or

remaining with the in-district cyber program. Research has further supported these

findings, as cited by Cavanaugh et al. (2004), who remarked, “Virtual school teachers

must be adept at helping children acquire the skills of autonomous learning, including

self-regulation” (p .6). Cavanaugh et al. (2004) also explained that “frequent teacher

contact with students and parents” (p.7), was indicative of best practices for online

learning and mentioned the theme of teacher quality throughout. Overall, teacher quality

was an important consideration for school administrators, students, and parents, as these

groups evaluated the key elements associated with an in-district cyber program.

Retention and Recruitment

The theme retention and recruitment appeared 27 times during the interview

process. Retention and recruitment was a vital aspect of the in-district cyber program as it

allowed the district to build upon its existing course options, and therefore reach more

students in the district. The participant groups had a wide range of responses that related

to the strategies or reasons why students chose to remain in or return to the in-district

cyber program. Students were recorded as making the most references to retention and

69

recruitment with 13 references, and an even number of school administrators and parents

responded with eight and six references, respectively.

Administrator Participant 1 remarked that overall the district’s reputation and

value of its diploma were important considerations regarding student retention and

recruitment:

I feel our reputation here is one factor that would get parents to keep their kids

here. I think that should be another reason that parents would want to have their

kids through a cyber program offered by a public school district, is that degree

that has a little more status than the other degree.

Administrator Participant 2 stated that student support and an on-campus, in-

district cyber center likely contributed to retention and recruitment. Additionally, the

flexibility that the in-district program afforded a student was often an attractive option:

I’d like to think students are remaining with the district cyber program because of

the way we’ve built it with some onsite support, taught by our teachers, so that a

local educator is there to support the students. They have the cyber center option

to come in and get support, as I mentioned. Let’s not just create cyber programs

that are just for kids that are choosing cyber, but let’s give other kids in the

district the same opportunities to have flexible scheduling, maybe overload their

schedule to graduate early, or maybe remediate to recover credits.

Administrator Participant 3 noted that individualizing learning online was

important and that listening closely to the needs of students and parents in the school and

district could support retention and recruitment. Also further attention should be paid to

parental expectations and desires regarding the program offerings:

We created our program to tailor student needs and parent needs. I would say that

students are identifying this program as really tailoring and meeting their

individual needs. It’s not sort of mass education anymore. It’s recognizing that

students have different interests inside school and out of school and this is a way

for parents and students to tailor their own instructional program. I would

recommend to any school that’s looking to do it, and I’ll just speak to the high

school, pay close attention to those courses that are requirements but often cause

significant strain on an individual student’s schedule. But parents, I think, is

70

where I would want to go next as far as the recruitment and retention. Because if

parents aren’t buying into the experience their sons or daughters are having, that

may be the reason why students chose not to take an online course.

Parent Participant 1 noted that it was important to make courses readily available:

“Make sure that all the courses are available. I know one of my children wanted to take

Latin II and it was not available. I still don’t understand why a cyber course can’t be

available.”

Parent Participant 2 stated that financial considerations most likely drove the

development and focus on student retention. Parent Participant 2 explained that more

focused advertising could help support in-district cyber program growth:

They seem to really appreciate it, probably mostly from a financial point of view

in that they’re trying to retain as many students as they can before they wander off

in to charter school- costing the district $10,000 and up per year. So it’s a huge

win for the district administrators budget-wise. I don’t think it’s publicized that

well. My sense is that it’s put out there as, “Well, if you can’t fit something in, we

can if we can offer you this.” I don’t know that it’s presented as a favorable

option. It’s presented as a last recourse type option.

Parent Participant 3 stated that issues with the non-in-district cyber program

created a sense of urgency to enroll in the in-district program. “So sheer nervousness

brought me back to this school, and I’m glad I did it. Now that I look back, there’s all the

reasons. I think, most importantly, is to get across that it’s a quality program.”

Student Participant 1 stated that the in-district program allowed for schedule

flexibility and was a reason for using this option: “For the next coming year and this

current year, the classes that they provide for us online, I really couldn’t get in this school

district (regular, face-to-face classes).”

Student Participant 1 also stated that access to technology resources and social

components played a role in being an in-district cyber student:

71

I wanted to stay here and because of the fact that the school did supply us with an

online learning system, I think that’s what made my decision is, meanwhile, my

friends are able to still do their classes here.

Student Participant 2 noted that technology accessibility was important for

encouraging participation in the in-district cyber program: “Just increase the technology,

I guess. More and more people have computers than before when didn’t have as much.”

Student Participant 3 felt that understanding how to navigate the in-district online

courses as well as the district’s advertisement of online course options would be

beneficial to program growth. The participant stated that students should have a better

understanding of the in-district cyber options:

For me, the factors were whether or not I felt the course was manageable to have

online because there are definitely some courses I could never see myself taking

online, such as maybe math courses.

I would say that they could advertise it more and maybe at the beginning of the

year or even during the summer when schedules are still more open to changes,

they could just talk a bit more with parents and students, and let them know the

advantages and the possible disadvantages. And just kind of market it a little

better I had to do--not necessarily a bit of digging but I kind of had to go and talk

to my counselor and learn more about it before and I felt comfortable taking an

online course.

Student Participant 4 mentioned the importance of advertising the program and

what students could expect if they enrolled in the in-district cyber academy:

Definitely just like advertising it more so then more students hear about it, and

make it more hand-on and everything, because everybody says that you don’t

want to do cyber because then, you’re just all by yourself but sometimes that’s

good like explain that home situation is going to be alone sometimes.

Student Participant 6 described that a quality work environment with

technological resources and support from teachers was important for retention and

recruitment:

72

Most definitely by providing a really nice work environment and resources, and

also people that will be able to help them if they have questions. If a kid is

struggling with something on the computer, if there is always somebody by to

kind of help them out and even keep them on task, I feel like people would be

more confident using the cyber program.

Student Participant 7 also mentioned the importance of clearly advertising the

program as a viable option for students who might struggle in the traditional classroom

setting:

I think they could maybe put it out there and be like—It’s a great opportunity for

you. It’s a different way of learning. And maybe more focus on the kids who

struggle in classes, and tell them that this is a new way and see if they enjoy it.

Student Participant 8 cited course variety and advertising as elements that would

encourage retention and recruitment for the in-district program. “Maybe offering a more

variety of courses or even advertising more and presenting the benefits of them. Like I

said, you could take them and place them in other classes and it’s not that much more

work.”

Student Participant 9 said a clearer explanation of the program should be provided

to students as well as a description of what students could expect if they decided to

become an in-district cyber student:

So most students return back to it because they found that they’re more

comfortable working that way, and you adapt to the environment you’re in. And I

found that it was more comfortable to be able to work in my own pace. I think it

needs to be described better. I think that most kids think, “Oh, cyber school, you

sit at home. You don’t do anything all day except sit on your laptop and do your

work.” I think that they need to explain better to the kids what they’re going to be

doing and how it works. I felt like, when I started, that I was thrown to the

wolves, like no one explained to me what exactly I was going to be doing.

Student Participant 10 pointed toward advertising available classes and how this

style of learning may be beneficial for students:

73

I think that if they advertised more classes available. There are classes like online

English I know some people take, because it can’t fit in their schedule, but if there

are more maybe elective classes that they offered. So, I feel like to recruit more

people into the cyber program, just advertising those specifically would gain it

more of positive outlook on it, rather than like, “Oh cyber classes, I don’t want to

take those when I can just take an actual class.

Student Participant 11 found that students were not entirely sure what the in-

district cyber program entailed and offered students. Further advertising or information

sessions would support student recruitment and retention:

I feel like they should talk to students more about it, because I know a lot of

students know about the cyber program, but they don’t know what it is exactly.

They just think it’s online stuff, but there’s a lot of videos and stuff that you can

do, to further your education on the topic that you’re in.

Student Participant 12 noted that blended learning or face-to-face sessions would

be helpful along with in-district cyber classes. Face-to-face sessions would help engage

more students already involved with online learning and possibly encourage more

students to become in-district cyber students:

I don’t know if this would be possible, but possibly administrating like once a

week like an in-class thing where they just comment and they talk about what

they’ve learned. Or also, discussion groups are really helpful. When we have

discussion on Blackboard, I think it is helpful because then you really have to

think about what you’ve learned and respond to other people, that really good for

interacting.

Summary. School administrators noted that the district’s reputation played a role

in retaining and recruiting students back to the district. Additionally, students built

relationships with students, teachers, and other staff within the district, which is an

attractive feature of the in-district program for students. Individualizing the cyber

program to student needs was an important part of the retention and recruitment process

as well. This finding aligns with previous research by Davis (2012), who stated that

74

online retention and recruitment strategies point toward creating personalized learning

with as many course options as possible. Parents noted that course availability would

support retention and recruitment efforts, and that the district was concerned with the

costs associated with losing students to other cyber programs. Several participants noted

that the district should employ advertising of some sort about the in-district cyber

program and what it actually entails. These participants felt that more students would be

inclined to participate in the program if they were more aware of course offerings and

what it meant to be an online student. Several student participants remarked that there

appeared to be some confusion among other students about what online courses actually

were and how they were taught. Participants mentioned course variety as an element to

employ when assessing retention and recruitment strategies.

Program Perception

With this theme, 26 references were made to program perception during the

course of the interviews with students, parents, and school administrators. Program

perception refers to various viewpoints about the current in-district cyber program based

upon each participant group. School administrators noted that members of the school

community were somewhat skeptical or unsure of the in-district cyber program’s quality.

Also the level of work required to implement the program was quite substantial, as

explained by another school administrator. Parent participants expressed doubts or

concerns about the implementation of online learning and the subsequent quality of the

classes and program. Parents also noted that more information was needed to adequately

evaluate the program. Student participants had a variety of responses about the program’s

75

quality, ease of understanding course content, and reasons for taking online courses,

among many other topics.

Administrator Participant 2 stated that people in the school district community

were potentially concerned about the in-district cyber program quality and if it was

worthwhile:

When first learning about the program, the interpretation was that the feeling

about the program is that it may potentially be inferior because it’s what people

are not used to. I think initially there is some trepidation before adoption and

seeing it as a valuable entity.

Administrator Participant 3 explained that during the beginning stages of the in-

district program, district stakeholders needed to understand the process. More recently,

opinions had become positive instead of skeptical:

I know there was a lot of work that needed to be done in those early years in

education parents, and students and administrators, and teachers as to what we

were doing, why we were doing it. So I would say perceptions have changed

rather significantly over the past three years from when we first started the

program to where we are now.

Parent Participant 2 stated that parents of students in the in-district program were

not currently in favor or pleased with the current product: “Parents are almost universally

unimpressed from what I’ve heard, which is not to say they’re against the program, or

they have strong—but they’re just not impressed, or at this point they’re not sold.”

Parent Participant 3 noted that school district employees found the in-district

program to be successful but that it had placed his or her student at a learning deficit:

I think that the administration and teachers, think that it works better than it does.

And I thought it would be a great idea when we started, but it wasn’t what I

thought, once we were involved in it. Our experience was not that (regarding that

the program was not a good fit for the parent’s child). Our experience was, we

were catching up from having done it.

76

Parent Participant 4 reported a mixed view of the use of technology in learning

and was neither strongly for nor strongly against it as it pertained to the in-district cyber

program. “I like technology but I’m also like the kind of person that doesn’t like

technology. I can see the good and bad in it.”

Parent Participant 5 had several points regarding in-district program perceptions

and noted that the in-district program should only have district teachers teaching the

online classes. The participant found that online courses purchased from providers not

affiliated with the in-district program were of poor quality. This participant found that

cyber charter or purchased online courses that were not taught by in-district teachers were

of poor quality and lacked adequate feedback:

From what I’ve observed with the administrators is, it can be somewhat

frustrating because if it were up to the administrators, the program would be based

solely on the school district because it’s a well know factor. You know the

teachers, you know what the rigors they—and what standards that they try and

maintain.

It’s frustrating for administrators when we have to purchase our online classes

through other organizations, because feedback is the major issue. As far as

teachers are concerned, I get the overall feeling that teachers don’t feel that it’s a

productive or legitimate way for a student to learn I think I’ve found that more

and more. From a student’s perspective, it’s extremely frustrating when you’re

doing work and there’s no feedback provided.

Online learning, now that I see—online is great for a variety of reasons, but I

don’t think people’s perceptions of the amount of negative factors involved is—I

just don’t think they get it. I think that the most important thing is that you’re

delivering a quality product (ensure that they are adequate resources).

Student Participant 2 explained that in-district online courses could be confusing

and required detailed instructions:

I think they should be more clear with their instructions, because a lot of them are

really vague. And have examples, because some of the projects, they don’t have

any examples and you don’t know how to do it. And some of them respond late

77

when I email them or ask them questions. And I think a lot of kids think it’s just

easier to do on the computer rather than to do face to face conversation.

Student Participant 5 stated that some students might not be aware of how much

work is required to complete online classes. This participant’s parents thought the online

coursework would be more challenging:

I didn’t really know anything about it, but a lot of students thought that it was just

like an easy way out of taking a normal class. But once you take it, you realize

that it’s a lot more in-depth and a lot more work than most of the students

perceive it to be. For my parents, they thought that it would actually be more

difficult than a normal class, because you have to do everything on your own to

stay caught up.

Student Participant 6 discussed a lack of preparation for what online learning

entailed. This participant would have preferred more support while taking online classes:

But I’m somebody who gets easily distracted by a lot of—by my friends. I’m

pretty social. But it was kind of a letdown because, when I ended up doing it, I

was really not prepared. I didn’t really have any preparation for being in an

environment like that. I was left alone to do all my own stuff and it was kind of

just... I didn’t have anyone to check in on me. It’s a great thing—for people that

are easily distracted and what not. But I think... I don’t know, it works.

Student Participant 8 thought that some teachers and students saw online courses

in a negative light and that school administrators stressed the difficulty of online

coursework. This participant learned how to manage online coursework and found it was

not necessarily challenging:

In my experience the students and sometimes even the teachers of the online

classes just think of it as an extra burden or just a class. They still think of it as a

serious class, where some administrators even think that it’s harder because it is

online, which is true in some cases, but in other times not really so much. There

might be more persistence on the teachers standing point or viewpoint. But I

think, for the most part it’s just like, “You signed up to do this. You knew what it

was.” So, Driver’s Ed. and Health, I realized that those were okay for me to do

online, because it was just a bunch of worksheets basically. And then taking those

courses I realized that maybe I could push myself farther and take a different

class. So, kind of made me see where I was at with the online class.

78

Student Participant 9 said that school administrators were supportive with the in-

district online program. This participant found the support of the in-district program with

peers and teachers nearby or around helpful toward academic success. With the cyber

charter school, the student participant had trouble understanding course content:

I found the administrators usually are pretty helpful; they’re not rushing. They’re

trying to work with the students and make sure that they can get their work done

on time and to the best of their ability. There can be a lot of anxiety for some kids

with attending normal school to try going online, some people learn better that

way. I found that I strive better and can have myself work harder when I am

influenced with people around me and constantly being aware of everything. So I

found that returning to school instead of cyber school helped me learn better.

(refers to third party or cyber charter school not the in-district program). When I

did it—when I was in cyber school—for a while, I was taking Algebra One

online. And to me that had me return to the course at home school instead of

continuing online just because I didn’t understand it—I couldn’t teach myself.

Student Participant 10 found that school administrators took the in-district

program seriously, whereas some teachers were not necessarily in favor of it. The

participant noted that teachers were clear in their instruction of classes. The participant

also found the experience with the in-district program to be enjoyable, as it supported

student responsibility. However, some students may still have been unclear about how the

in-district program worked:

The administration here does take it very seriously. Some teachers are kind of

skeptical about it, but usually the faculty does very well in explaining everything.

A lot of that I know, people that I talk to, they don’t really understand it much.

They think, “Cyber School, what is that? Are you taught by your parents? How

would you explain it?” I personally have enjoyed it. I do enjoy the online classes,

because when you go into college, you need to have a sense of time management

skills. It made me responsible for my own errors in the way of scheduling, which

is why I stuck with cyber school.

For the past two years, I’ve been doing cyber courses from this district. But our

program is very well done in the way that I would never go back to the previous

program, because it’s very—you have to be self-reliant.

79

Student Participant 11 found that whereas there were some difficulties with online

learning, it ultimately helped students by allowing them to work at their own pace. Some

components of online learning were easier, some were more challenging, from the

student’s perspective:

I had a bit of trouble with English, but when I went onto the online course in 9th

grade, it helped me learn a little bit more, because I could do it at my own pace.

It’s a bit easier. Like anything, there are some parts online that are harder than in a

classroom, and there are some parts in the classroom that’s harder than online. It’s

just evening out.

Student Participant 12 noted that in-district online learning was difficult with

regard to student-teacher discussions or meeting. The student must take the initiative.

“Other than like grading, it’s hard to interact with the teacher unless you go off your own

way.”

Summary. A wide variety of responses were found upon reviewing the

participant perceptions theme. Participants noted that the initial discussion and

implementation of the in-district cyber program was thought of as possibly inferior to the

traditional classroom learning environment. Another participant stated that some

members of the school community were unsure of the in-district program’s merits and

how effective the program might be; others stated that online learning might not be a fit

for everyone based upon the solitary nature of online learning. Parents expressed

concerns about teacher feedback and questioned the quality of courses taught by

nondistrict teachers. Several student participants said that further support and clarity was

needed regarding online instruction as well as programmatic offerings. It appeared that

some level of confusion existed among students as to what online learning entailed and

80

how one could prepare for this type of educational environment. Research by Barbour et

al. (2012) found that some factors could be problematic for students and parents of online

leaners: “Students also feel that their online teachers are difficult to contact, and that the

asynchronous course content is poorly designed” (p. 14). Research by Barbour et al.

(2012) aligned with the findings that the researcher gathered from interviews with parents

and students. Other students remarked that online course difficulty could vary throughout

the program and that the lack of interaction with peers in cyber education could be

challenging for some students. It should be noted, however, that many of the negative

experiences that students and parents recalled were aligned with cyber charter

experiences and not necessarily with the in-district online program. Additionally, other

students found the program to be helpful as a viable option to traditional face-to-face

classes to be problematic. Overall, participants provided a wide variety of responses

pertaining to the in-district cyber program and other cyber experiences. The overarching

finding pointed to the need for frequent teacher support for students who may have

varying degrees of comfort with learning online.

Support

The next thematic section, support, includes 26 comments aligned with the topic

of providing support services and assistance to in-district cyber learners. Parents,

students, and school administrators agreed on the importance of setting up or receiving

consistent course content and technology assistance for cyber learners. Relationship

building and frequent contact with students was cited as a key factor in the development

of student learning. According to school administrators, students, and teachers, support is

81

defined as continuous communication, feedback, engagement, program organization, and

relationship development.

Administrator Participant 2 noted that relationship building is a key to

programmatic success. A sense of caring with an emphasis on child development is an

important key to a successful district and in-district cyber program:

For me it’s personal relationships. And something the school district has always

done really well is establishing those personal relationships, making sure that the

families and the students know that everyone here cares about them, and that is

not just a machine of a school district that we are wholly interested in the growth

of the child and the success of the child, so that’s the biggest point for me.

Administrator Participant 3 explained that communication between teachers,

parents, students, and school administrators was very important to student success.

Parents needed to know exactly why in-district online learning works, and what students

were to accomplish:

I just think ongoing communication, being clear initially as to what students can

expect of their online experience. I think an area that we’ve gotten better at is

doing an online orientation for students so they know. And the students, I found,

are more quick to adapt to an online format, but parents need an orientation as to

what they expect their children to be doing.

Parent Participant 2 said that students in an online class needed continuous

reminders and help with engagement from teachers:

From my point of view, keeping the student on track. Speaking personally, that’s

really critical. Keeping the student engaged, because there’s obviously a tendency

to become disengaged if you don’t just show up in class. I think those are the

critical factors.

Parent Participant 3 stated that very individualized daily support would have

helped with his or her student’s experience. The parent participant explained that

proactive support was needed:

82

I think that the best thing that I could say for us, would’ve been if we truly had

someone at the school, who was for him, following him, and helping him. Like a

teacher, but not dumping it on him or I to organize everything and know what the

next step was. Someone that reached out to us—but consistently and regularly—

not when was a problem, not when something was missing. Not when you are

already behind but, like a teacher would every day. Even if it was email.

Parent Participant 5 remarked that feedback was a key component to online

learning quality. Non-in-district cyber teachers did not provide quality feedback, from

Parent Participant 5’s perspective:

I think with online learning, that is a huge factor—feedback. I’ve had two

students come through this school district that are very successful. All of the them

that my daughter participated in were classes that were not involved—did not

involve (in-district) teachers (use of a third party provider).

Student Participant 1 thought that in-district cyber teachers contacted students via

email but not as often or rigorously as if they had been in a traditional face-to-face class,

“What I see them doing is emailing if anything is going not okay, and quite frankly, I

don’t think they push students to be in online classes.”

Student Participant 3 found that in-district cyber teachers were available for extra

instruction. Some in-district online teachers were very responsive with feedback and

updates whereas others were not as consistent:

I think teachers have to put in a much effort as students are. For kids who might

need a little extra instruction, the teacher needs to be around maybe after school

or sometime during the day, during a study hall period in order to offer that little

bit of extra instruction. They also have to be on top of keeping up weekly because

I’ve had some teachers that weren’t as good at getting all the work posted weekly,

say, on the online course, whereas, I’ve had other teachers that would be on there.

Every couple of days, I’ll have new grades and it will be very, very quick, very

fast response time.

Student Participant 4 explained that in-district cyber teachers were available at the

school, it was easy to contact them, and they were quite involved in the online process:

83

I think it’s pretty good because it pretty easy to use. It’s nice that there is a teacher

here in the building that you can go and ask questions, so you don’t wait from

them to find an email to get back to you. It’s really easy like if you don’t

understand something, you can actually have a conversation with the person. You

don’t have to send 14,000 emails back and forth saying, I don’t understand this. I

would say they’re pretty good because they have a big involvement with how you

complete your assignments and when they’re due, and how they’re due.

Student Participant 5 said that teachers provided reminder emails about missing

assignments and were available to meet in person:

[They] helped by making sure that I was staying on the top and sending emails

when I wasn’t and it’s also possible to be with the teacher to check in to see

what’s due that week and make sure that you have everything done that you need

to.

Student Participant 6 mentioned the helpfulness of the cyber center as well as of

the schedule flexibility that resulted from taking an in-district cyber course:

A place where I can focus on cyber being able to kind of connect to the internet

and do my work for that class, and also hopefully kind of other stuff as well. And

use it more like a more relaxing period than being in health class, because I feel

like that kind of helps in senior year. But if you have success with it, then you

definitely—I think you should return.

Student Participant 7 noted that email reminders, discussion boards, and teacher

feedback were strengths of the in-district class experience. The student participant stated

that individual tutoring would be helpful for those struggling with an online class:

I think it’s pretty well organized and I really like how you get emails and stuff,

reminding you to do stuff. The discussion board is awesome too, because you get

a perspective of what everyone else thinks and you get to interact with students

even though it’s online. I think that teachers keep up with it very, very well, and

they tell you like right on point what you’re supposed to do. But I think they

could do better, maybe like one-on-one if you’re having a tough time they could

come notice and see you and remind you.

Student Participant 8 found that in-person support from teachers was readily

available and supportive of in-district online learning. “And also, the teachers always

84

offer help in person if you need it. So I feel like it’s online but it’s hands-on too with the

personal experience.”

Student Participant 10 found the support from teachers in the in-district program

to be rather strong with easy accessibility. Feedback from teachers was characterized as

strong as well:

But I think our program is especially set up well. You can contact your teacher if

need be. Sometimes there’s a teacher from here or another school. But usually the

classes that I have been in, it has been a teacher from this specific school. I don’t

know; you get help if you need it. It’s very, very easy to get in touch with them.

They are always very helpful, they always provide feedback. They get back to

you very very quickly which is very convenient, because of my schedule,

especially.

Student Participant 11 noted that teachers and other staff members involved with

the in-district cyber program were helpful and emphasized student success:

Even if you need help, you can contact somebody and they’ll walk you through

the steps to learn what you need to learn. Everybody’s really determined to get

you to do your best on online. I met a lot of great people, especially in the school

district. They’re kind. They really do want you to succeed, to do your best.

Summary. The participant responses associated with the theme of support

pointed toward the practice of maintaining continuous communication with online

learners and their families. School administrators stated that personal connections and a

sense of care regarding student success were key factors that allowed positive

relationship building and student success. Keeping students engaged with the quality of

the online course content as well as maintaining consistent feedback were considered

important factors in creating a supportive environment for online learning. Participants

also agreed that encouraging students who were falling behind in their coursework—with

frequent reminders, providing flexibility, and holding accessible office hours or time after

85

school—was likely to engender a supportive atmosphere. Students found that having

online teachers physically present in the school building was extremely helpful when

seeking further feedback or clarification on a project or assignment. Email

communication was cited as being quite effective among students as they were able to

receive feedback or support during the day or after regular school hours. Several students

remarked that the email responsiveness of teachers associated with the in-district cyber

program was outstanding and allowed for very prompt explanations to questions or

problems. Research by Patrick and Powell (2009) explained, “Interaction is at the heart of

learning” (as cited Weiner, 2003, p.8). This statement clearly resembles the responses

provided by each participant group as they related to the theme support. Students and

parents sought consistent and clear feedback from online teachers in order to best

understand content being taught outside the traditional face-to-face setting. Rice (2006)

referenced research by Weiner (2003), stating “that a high degree of student-teacher

interaction, including feedback and summaries to students, are a necessity in the virtual

classroom, otherwise students felt ignored, lonely and lost in courses” (p. 436). Weiner’s

(2003) research further coincided with the findings of this study as students and parents

sought contact and consistent interaction with their respective online teachers in order to

maximize educational success.

Flexibility

Within this section, 24 references were made relating to flexibility and the various

options that were made available to students as they pertained to in-district cyber

coursework, with particular focus on schedule availability. Parents and students

frequently referenced how taking online learning courses with the in-district program

86

allowed for managing scheduling difficulties in order to open up time for college courses,

work, extracurricular commitments, and various other obligations. Students and parents

also found that the in-district cyber program allowed students to make up failed classes,

graduate on time, earn extra credits, or participate in sports when they would otherwise

be unable to do so.

Parent Participant 1 cited schedule flexibility as important for students and stated

that it provided more options with the use of in-district cyber courses: “Because it helps

clear up their schedules so that they can take courses they want to take. Just wanting to

flesh out their schedules and their ability to get it in their own time.”

Parent Participant 2 said that although it may not be the best way to take a course,

students were able to take courses that would otherwise not be available:

I think mostly the flexibility. I haven’t heard much favorable comment in terms

of, well it’s a great way to do your course, but it certainly helps with getting the

required course completed. Students, from what I’ve heard, appreciate the

flexibility that it gives them with block programming to complete or fit in what

they need to fit in. As you know, blocking programming creates a lot of

inflexibility, so this is a good fit there.

Parent Participant 4 briefly noted that course flexibility created options for the

participant’s daughter, “I think she looks at different options.”

Student Participant 1 noted that credit recovery was a benefit of the in-district

online courses as students wanted to ensure that they graduated on time:

So taking the online classes made the process go a lot faster for making up credits

and for me, it was just easier. If it was something that was going to help me, or

help me progress getting credits, it would be something I could do.

Student Participant 2 said that it was a necessity to take an in-district cyber class

due to his or her schedule being full, “I had to do it because my schedule was really full

87

and I had to take Health and pass. I had to take that online. There were not a lot of free

periods.”

Student Participant 3 also pointed to schedule flexibility as an important

component of in-district online learning:

From what I’ve seen and what I’ve experienced, I would say that kids especially

like to have online classes because it enables them to earn credits while not taking

up space during the school day. Also, whether or not I felt it would free up my

schedule and it would allow me to take other courses. If I can manage it schedule-

wise with my workload and just with my time management to see if I could

actually handle or take an online course. Really it came down to courses I needed

to take. There were some courses in my past years that I was not able to fit in with

my schedule and they were courses that were required to graduate, so I needed to

take a health course online, because there was no other way I could fit it in with

my current class schedule.

Student Participant 4 found that class conflicts in student schedules could be

ameliorated by taking online courses with the in-district cyber program:

Probably because you can get more classes in and they’re easier to schedule that

way, because if the classes conflict each other, then you can go and take one class,

and then you can also take a different class, even if they’re offered at the same

time. Like class conflicts, I can take some classes and then if I took it online, then

I could take another class that I wanted to take, and that I needed to take. And

since they’re both offered and I needed them both, I had to take on online.

Student Participant 5 noted that it was important to take online English, otherwise

this student would have had difficulty graduating on time:

It makes things easier because if you don’t have a schedule that fits with you can’t

fit all the classes that you want, then you can take it online, do a cyber program

like that. Forced to also by their schedule if it doesn’t allow. For me, I didn’t have

the time to take a normal English so that’s the main reason I took online English.

Whether they enjoy it or whether their schedule permits, but also they have the

capability to do it. In my case it was a schedule limitation that I didn’t have time

to fit a normal, standard English class in school. And so by being able to have the

option to do a cyber course at home, I was able to take English this year since it

was required to graduate.

88

Student Participant 7 also pointed to the flexibility in scheduling, particularly

when students were taking challenging classes. Some of these more difficult classes were

at colleges and universities, and online courses still allowed students to participate in this

opportunity:

I think it makes it easier for us with overwhelming schedules Just because new

year, new schedule—still overwhelming, easier. Just makes it easier overall, my

schedule. The quality not so much. It was more just based on my schedule.

Student Participant 8 stated that the schedule options were increased with online

classes such as online driver’s ed. and health:

I think it offers an easy way to get some classes out of the way so that it doesn’t

take up space on their schedule, like some of the required. I took it for Driver’s

Ed. and Health and then I took it for another class too. But I remember taking

those classes specifically just so I wouldn’t have to—they wouldn’t take up room

in my schedule.

Student Participant 10 said that playing sports made scheduling difficult and that

online learning redressed this problem, “It is very convenient if you wanted—especially

because I, personally went into online courses because I play tennis. Whether it’s sports

or health reasons, it’s just very convenient for them, time-wise.”

Student Participant 11 noted that scheduling and extra credits could be obtained

through online classes with the in-district program:

I think it’s a great way to get extra credits on top of your other classes. You can

even do an online course during your semester classes. For example, I need a

history credit, so I can get my history credit online while continuing to do my

current classes.

Student Participant 12 cited convenience and taking courses otherwise

unavailable as a boon of the in-district cyber program:

I think it’s good if students have—if they can’t fit something in their schedule. I

know for me personally, for online Environmental, I couldn’t fit it into my

89

schedule, so I took it as an online class I could take it without having to worry

about it. It’s more convenient overall. I didn’t have any room in my schedule,

that’s why I took it.

Summary. The theme of flexibility was found throughout various comments

regarding schedules by both parents and students. The option to take courses that met the

desires of students or met graduation requirements were noted as one of the most useful

aspects of in-district online learning. Rice (2006) referenced research by Tunison and

Noonan (2001) with the following:

The most common response to the question of the benefits of a virtual school was

their appreciation of the autonomy and freedom. Although most students

identified the teacher as the ultimate source of information, many students

enjoyed the opportunity to work on their own. (p. 436)

Online options certainly provided this freedom and responsibility for students when

taking online courses, which was referenced many times by participants in the study.

Some parents remarked that they were skeptical about the quality of online courses but

that the flexibility offered in this format was beyond what the traditional learning

environment could provide. Flexibility and student satisfaction with this option were

likely aligned with student retention and recruitment when one considers reasons why

students returned or remained with the in-district program.

Social Interaction

The importance of relationships and school-based interactions were deemed

appropriate as 15 references to social interaction were found within this theme.

Participants described that being able to interact with peers within the school

environment while still taking online courses was an ideal situation or scenario. These

students were offered course flexibility through in-district online courses while remaining

90

eligible for sports or other school-related activities. Parents, students, and school

administrators repeatedly mentioned the importance of peer interactions and spending

time with friends on a regular basis. Participants indicated that social growth was a key

component to a student’s development prior to entering college, and the in-district

program allowed for adequate social interactions. A few students remarked that cyber

options with limited social interactions were best with students who had experience with

bullying or other school-related issues.

Administrator Participant 2 stated that students who participated in the in-district

cyber program were able to interact with peers within their home district:

There’s also a social component right, and students are obviously growing up as

much socially as they are academically and being with friends, potentially having

the opportunity to graduate with their friends and continue in the community

where they are, feels like home.

Administrator Participant 3 stated that students participating in the in-district

program had access to events and peer interactions that would be more difficult if a

student took cyber charter courses:

Students enjoy having peer interactions which they weren’t experiencing when

they were fully cyber and fully outside of the district. In the program they’re in

now, they can spend part of their day with their peers, and peers are important to

students.

Parent Participant 2 remarked that his student’s peers and friends attended classes

with the in-district cyber program or the district’s regular face-to-face program, “His

friends are here. His other classes are here, his other classes where he has a physical

presence. His athletics are here, his social life is here.”

Parent Participant 3 explained that some students might find the cyber courses to

be best if one has difficulty interacting with students in the traditional education setting:

91

I think that some kids feel alienated—or that they don’t fit in—and it’s easier for

them to do cyber. From the few other kids that I have ever met, I think that it was

a relief for them to not have the pressure of school. The social aspect of, his

friends are still here, being in a play, or playing sports, or tech school, or

whatever, can’t be done, unless you go through _____(district) Cyber school so

that was for him.

I still think there needs to be—we can’t forget the social. Kids need to—I think

everything is always on the computer. There needs to be other ways you depend

on knowledge like whether you read a book or going to.

It has become part of their growth. They don’t know any different so I think they

would want to come back to it because every kid is like, I can’t live without my

phone.

Socially, I was concerned about her not interacting with other kids before she

walked out of here and went to college.

Student Participant 1 confirmed that online learning may provide relief for

students that experienced bullying and allowed them to continue their education:

In the cases that I’ve seen, it’s been because of the in-school environment of the

bullying or the harassment or just because for some kids it’s easier to do their

learning online or they don’t feel comfortable in a classroom. I believe that they

don’t feel comfortable in the environment, like the schooling system

environment, and they feel more comfortable online where they’re not exactly

involved or can’t communicate with as many students.

Student Participant 6 noted that it was both helpful and challenging to experience

online learning due to the difference in social interactions compared to traditional face-to-

face learning:

I’m definitely more of a social person, so it’s not really something that I’m

looking for. But I definitely think that having that opportunity to be able to kind

of take myself out of the situation and be able to be constantly surrounded by

people, is nice.

Student Participant 11 stated that although online learning was not a first or

preferred choice, it was a helpful option during past health concerns:

92

I enjoy being in a classroom and learning like that. But if I had to go back to

cyber, like if I were to be injured again, I would definitely go back to cyber. It

was a great help during that.

Summary. Upon review of each participant’s response, it is apparent that social

interactions, a sense of community, extracurricular activities, and friendships are all

elements that should be present within an in-district online program. Student participants

remarked that many students need consistent social interaction with friends and the in-

district program afforded students the chance to take cyber courses while still spending

time with peers through a wide variety of school-related events. Some parent participants

stated that if their child attended another cyber school, he or she would miss out on the

social experiences present with the in-district program. Several students stated that the in-

district online program could support students who were having difficulty due to bullying

or another school-related issue. The in-district cyber program could serve as a way of

gradually transitioning students back into the school setting if they desired to do so.

Another student explained that the cyber program was quite helpful during a difficult

time and that he or she would return to the program, if needed, due in part to the ability to

interact with others in one’s home school. The ability for students to engage in socially

relevant experiences while enrolled in the in-district cyber program is likely to increase

or maintain the retention and recruitment goals for the district. When considering the

social importance and the development of students as online learners, Angelino et al.

(2007) explained that programs should “focus on learner’s needs; not just what is easy.

Online students may have similar needs for assistance and resources as traditional

students” (p. 10). Additionally, cyber students might need further support when compared

to traditional face-to-face learners, as referenced by Berge and Huang (2004), who have

93

recommended “a customized model of student retention that takes into account personal,

circumstantial, and institutional factors, as well as the interconnectedness of these

factors” (p. 1). Overall, the participant and research findings pertaining to the social

theme point toward a comprehensive approach with opportunities for peer interaction as a

key element of student needs.

Cost and Financials

In this thematic section, seven references were made to the costs and financial

considerations associated with the in-district cyber program. Several administrators noted

that grants, purchasing practices, and the analysis of resources all played a role in

determining how to keep the in-district cyber program fiscally viable. Developing and

supporting district teachers through internal training opportunities was also a way to

ensure that costs are reined in while simultaneously growing the in-district program.

Administrator Participant 1 discussed that hiring a school administrator to run the

in-district program ultimately resulted in cost savings. Administrator Participant 1 also

noted that grant funding could support the program:

We actually brought someone on full-time to run the program and used the

savings that he was able to bring kids back into to sort of offset the cost for the

whole program. We budget for just local donations or local grants, anything like

that to run different programs. The state has some grants that are available.

Administrator Participant 2 described that analyzing district expenses and how

online content was delivered were factors related to keeping costs down with the in-

district online program:

The best way to address this, the best way to look at it is, look at the current

purchasing practices, current expenditures; see where fixed assets are being

purchased because fixed assets are a dead zone anymore, anyhow. Maybe

eliminate some of those and come back to looking at dynamic resources, flexible

94

solutions, online solutions that grow overtime, online courses, online content,

robotics programs, even things like remediation, I would consider certainly a

blended solution.

Administrator Participant 3 also noted that grant funding was a way to support in-

district cyber programming along with support from district education foundations.

Partnerships were also considered valuable according to Administrator Participant 3:

If you are able to use state grants, that’s great because you can open your budget

and raise your expenditure and your revenues to the same. If there’s a federal

grant that is available. Also working with your education foundation is another

really great way. Training teachers and supporting administrators in a successful

implementation of online learning, again, partnering with organizations that may

be skilled in training. Not even having the money, but partner with your

neighboring districts that have an online program to just learn from what your

neighbor is doing.

Summary. Administrative participants noted that considerable planning was

required to adequately analyze the financial considerations of an in-district cyber

program. A full-time employee was designated to oversee program development along

with student retention and recruitment. Starting an in-district cyber program and hiring a

director of online learning, of course, was a cost consideration that required foresight and

strategic planning. Participants stated that state and federal grants were options to support

the in-district cyber program along with determining which assets were fixed and what

creative alternatives could be implemented to save costs while supporting a high-quality

program. Barbour (2010) found that grant funding might support in-district cyber

programming but that state funding had been restricted in the past several years due to the

budgetary crisis. Lastly, participant administrators explained that in-district online

partnerships among nearby and neighboring districts could also be a source of cost

savings through course sharing and collaborative trainings. Researchers have noted that

95

the per pupil costs of cyber and charter tuition reported by former Pennsylvania Auditor

General Jack Wagner’s 2012 report. The rising per pupil tuition reimbursement costs

were a constant reminder of the importance of retaining and recruiting students for the in-

district cyber program.

Artifact Analysis: Overall District Enrollment and Demographics

This researcher consulted the most recent recorded demographic information for

the 2013–2014 school year—found via the School Performance Profile (n.d.)—which

was recorded by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The School Performance

Profile (n.d.) website provided information on all districts in the State of Pennsylvania

and was designed with the purpose of analyzing school district data and performance

while helping districts improve upon existing areas of growth. According to the

Paschoolperformance.org website, the School Performance Profile (n.d.) “provides

information used in determining federal accountability status for Title I schools as

required by the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Action section 1111 (h)(1)

and (h)2” (para. 2). The district has an enrollment of approximately 1,700 students, 94%

of whom were identified as White (not Hispanic), 2.9% Hispanic, 1% Asian (not

Hispanic), and 1% Black (not Hispanic); 18.24% were considered Economically

Disadvantaged.

Charter and Cyber Charter Enrollment and Per Pupil Costs

The following data were found by analyzing current in-district cyber student

records as tracked by the district’s central office administration. For the 2014–2015

school year, the district had 33 students attending a total of nine charter schools; 18 of the

33 students were attending cyber charter programs outside of the in-district program at a

96

cost to the district of $13,567.59 per regular education pupil and $29,113.50 per special

education pupil. Fifteen regular education students and three special education students

were attending cyber charter schools. The total district cost was approximately

$290,854.35.

Student Demographics: In-District Cyber Program

The researcher also accessed district office records, which record the number of

students enrolled in the in-district cyber program. The researcher accessed PowerSchool,

a student record management system that contained demographic information and records

on those within the district. The demographic codes and designations are determined by

the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Twenty-six students were participating in the

in-district cyber program that met the researcher’s criteria of cyber course experience in

grades 11 through 12. Twenty-four students were identified White (not Hispanic) and

numbered 5 in accordance with the Pennsylvania Race or Ethnicity Code. Two students

were identified Asian (not Hispanic) and numbered 9 in accordance with Pennsylvania

Race or Ethnicity Code. Five students were recorded as Economically Disadvantaged by

the school district. Attendance records from this group displayed a relationship between

academic achievement and days in school. Students who regularly attended school and

had zero or few instances of being late to school were more inclined to earn grades in the

B to A range. Conversely, those who earned grades at or below the C range were more

likely to have more days missed from school. Behavior records from this group indicated

minor infractions such as lateness to school or missed detentions from the group of

students studied. The results did not show any patterns or provide any relationship

97

between in-district cyber program participation and increased or decreased disciplinary

frequency or level of infraction.

Within the student interview participant group, which consisted of 12 students,

five were male and seven were female; 11 students identified as White (not Hispanic) and

numbered 5 in accordance with the Pennsylvania Race or Ethnicity Code. One student

was identified as Asian (not Hispanic) and numbered 9 in accordance with the

Pennsylvania Race or Ethnicity Code. Four students were recorded as economically

disadvantaged by the school district. Attendance records from this group also displayed a

relationship between academic achievement and days in school. Students who regularly

attended school and had zero or few instances of being late to school were more inclined

to earn grades within the B to A range. Conversely, those who earned grades at or below

the C range were more likely to have more days missed from school. Additionally three

or four students who were identified economically disadvantaged had a greater number of

tardies to school compared to the other nine students in this particular grouping. Behavior

records from this group reflected minor infractions such as detentions or Saturday

detentions resulting from being tardy to school or cutting class. Four of the 12 students

had minor behavioral records while the remaining eight had no record of disciplinary

action or warnings given by the school administration.

Artifact: Strategic Planning Documents

During the 2010–2011 school year, the district compiled a proposal that

delineated the current and past costs associated with charter schools and cyber charter

schools. The financial records indicated a gradual rise in district costs associated with

students choosing to attend charter and cyber charter schools. The chart below shows a

98

breakdown of costs of student attendance, number of students enrolled, and how many

were attending cyber charter schools. During the 2010–2011 school year, the per pupil

costs for students without an Individualized Education Program (IEP) were $11,185.27,

and $23,741.27 per student with an IEP. Forty-six students were without an IEP, whereas

four had IEPs. Table 8 displays charter and cyber charter school costs to the district from

the 2006-2007 school year through the 2010-2011 school year.

Table 8

Charter and Cyber Charter School Costs: 2006–2007 Through 2010–2011 School Year

School year Cost Student enrollment

2006–2007 $142,152 (actual) Not recorded

2007–2008 $225,492 (actual) 21 (7 cyber students)

2008–2009 $290,183 (actual) 27 (9 cyber students)

2009–2010 $466,269 (actual) 40 (26 cyber

students)

2010–2011 $527,700 (budget) 50 (36 cyber

students)

The district then conducted a cyber charter survey inquiring about student interest

in an in-district cyber program; 13 of 17 respondents noted that if curricular needs were

met by the in-district cyber program and they could earn a diploma from the district, then

they would enroll in the in-district program. Therefore, the district proposed starting the

in-district cyber program for the 2011–2012 school year for 12th-grade students with

course offerings such as health, English, statistics, cultural diversity, environmental

99

science/earth and space, and contract gym. Additionally from the 2012–2013 through the

2014–2015 school year, the district planned to expand high school online course options

as well as to begin elementary, middle school, and ultimately a full K–12 cyber program.

This proposal also introduced a new administrator role initially titled the director of

technology integration, which eventually became the current title, director of online

learning.

The district also created a survey tool during the 2010–2011 school year to

analyze the factors associated with students choosing to attend online learning at a cyber

charter program. Items such as course options, class flexibility, choosing one’s own work

pace, and having the ability to work from home were all cited as reasons that students and

families were opting for online learning. It is also noteworthy that a number of students

went from the home school environment to the cyber charter setting. Furthermore, the

district created a PowerPoint presentation that summarized key elements in favor of

creating its own in-district cyber program. A 354% increase in charter and cyber charter

costs since 2005 with costs rising nearly $504,000, combined with student interest in

returning to their home district, spurred the decisions to promptly implement the program

for the 2011–2012 school year. In the spring of 2011, the district sent a welcome letter

from the superintendent to district families detailing the offerings of the in-district

program with an emphasis on flexibility, course options, and the ability to graduate with a

diploma from the district. According to parents who took part in a district survey, a

diploma from a highly regarded public school carried more weight than a cyber charter-

only program or school. The district also created a cyber tracking form to record face-to-

face and phone contacts with students and families who expressed interest in attending

100

the district’s in-district cyber program while reminding potential students about the

opportunities to attend various school district functions, still attend the vocational

technical school, and receive a district diploma as well as all the support and guidance to

which traditional students have access. During the start of the 2012–2013 school year, the

district and local teacher’s union convened and agreed upon the working conditions and

expectations of online teachers and their respective teaching assignments. The district

also noted in this memorandum that it would partner with a neighboring district and, at

times, instruct students from each other’s district while staying in their home district.

This practice was undertaken in an attempt to maintain course availability and flexibility

for students. This memorandum was updated for the 2014–2015 school year to include

the option of an online summer course in a blended format with online and face-to-face

interactions.

In July of 2014, the district created an administrative regulation (AR) pertaining

to the practice of ensuring that high-quality online in-district course content took place.

This administrative document states that “curriculum, assessments, and instruction

provided to students in online courses are consistent with that delivered in the traditional

classroom environment” (District document, July 1, 2014, AR No. 107). References were

also made regarding the importance of aligning course content with district objectives

and state standards as well providing support to teachers via evaluations made by the

director of online learning and the director of curriculum. Also, the district is presently

using an evaluation tool and rubric from Quality Matters, which provides content to

support the development of best practices in online learning.

101

Artifact: Teacher Survey Information

In 2014, the district also conducted a survey of in-district cyber teachers regarding

perceptions of the third-party provider’s online content, course rigor, learning strategies

employed, assessment techniques, face-to-face meeting time with students, and other

probing questions pertaining to the online program quality and practice. A summary of

key findings cited the following: 64% of teachers found the predesigned, third party

provider courses to be of low quality when compared to district courses in the face-to-

face setting; 87.5% noted that the administration of assessments differed online versus in

the classroom; 93% reported that instructional strategies were different online and

required adaptations as opposed to face-to-face learning; 56% stated that writing prompts

and tasks differed when teaching an in-district cyber course; 91.25% felt comfortable

with the quality of instruction they were providing their students; 80 to 87.5% of teachers

utilized training sessions offered in-person or face to face by the third party provider of

online content; 75% of teacher respondents noted that understanding how to help students

collaborate online would be helpful; 81% of teachers stated that students have met with

them during the scheduled office hours or cyber teacher time; 68.75% of teachers noted

that students attended the in-district cyber lounge at the district’s on campus site.

Additionally, various teachers provided remarks on how a new in-district cyber teacher

should prepare to teach a class and the pitfalls to avoid.

Artifact: Financial Documents and Past Records

For the 2015–2016 school year, per pupil costs were expected to rise to $14,500

for a student without an IEP and $30,500 for a student with an IEP. Additional expense

reports from the 2009–2010 school year through the 2013–2014 school year displayed a

102

substantial rise in costs associated with charter and cyber charter programming for which

the district must prepare in the years to come. Table 9 provides a brief history of the

expenditure format. The budget has expanded nearly every year, at times by hundreds of

thousands of dollars.

Table 9

In-District Budgetary Amounts

School year Original budget Current

budget

Expended/received Balance

2009-2010 $455,000 $455,000 $457,332.96 $-2,332.96

2010-2011 $527,700 $527,700 $558, 343.72 $-30,643.72

2011-2012 $646,000 $438.095 $346,970.56 $91,124.44

2012-2013 $577,600 $577.000 $390,903.47 $186,096.53

2013-2014 $697,898 $697,898 $398,266.25 $299,631.75

2014-2015 $923, 400 TBD TBD TBD

2015-2016 $733,000 TBD TBD TBD

Further analysis of the cyber/charter school documents indicated that special

education pupil enrollment and costs were projected to increase for the 2015–2016 school

year, with special education costs rising over $60,000 from the previous school year.

Financial and District Savings

Artifact review of documents prepared by the school district business

administrator displayed the following details regarding budgetary savings from charter

and cyber charter programming and the recruitment/retention of students (see Table 10).

103

Table 10

In-District Budgetary Savings

School year Charter school budget Number of students Savings

2009-2010 $466,269 Not available Not

available

2010-2011 $558,344 47 non-special education

students

Not

available


students

$86,352

2012-2013 $749,000

(includes in-district cyber

operational costs)

44 non-special education

students

$126 821


students

$270,000

The estimated budget for the 2014–2015 school year was approximately

$855,675, with 44 non-special education students. According to records kept by the

district business administrator, the number of students would have expanded to 63 at a

cost of $950,000 if the in-district cyber program were not in place. Additionally, Table 10

shows tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings due to the in-district program

implementation when considering the overall cost breakdown of charter and cyber

funding allocations. The school district business administrator also noted in his report

that it was extremely difficult to determine the exact number of students who decided to

attend the in-district cyber program instead of a cyber charter option outside of the

district. The school business administrator stated that since the inception of the in-district

104

cyber program, the addition of the director of online learning has completed an effort to

retain and recruit students, and the entire savings could be approximately $1,000,000.

Further detailing the function of the budget process, the business administrator noted, if

“we budget 44 students and we end up with 30 students, then we have achieved actual

savings that can be reinvested in the program or that money falls to Fund Balance”

(business administrator, personal communication, February, 2015).

Results and Interpretations

A review of the thematic elements that emerged from the one-on-one interviews,

student artifacts, financial documents, strategic planning information, and teacher surveys

made several commonalities apparent.

Reference to the seven themes—teacher quality, retention and recruitment,

program perception, support, flexibility, social interaction, and cost/financials—in

participant feedback via interviews allowed for detailed analysis of responses from three

administrators, five parents, and 12 students. Each participant group noted the importance

of having high quality and accessible teachers within an in-district cyber program. Based

upon participant responses, teachers were readily accessible online or face to face, which

was also an important factor when parents and students considered entering the in-district

cyber program or decided to use another cyber option outside of their home district.

Schedule flexibility was cited as an important factor that students considered

when participating in the in-district cyber program. Students repeatedly remarked that by

taking in-district cyber courses, they were able to create much higher levels of flexibility

within their schedules, which lessened stress and allowed for adding classes that fit their

interests and possibly their work schedules as well.

105

Program quality was also noted as a factor that supported student retention as

students graduating from the in-district cyber program received the same diploma as face-

to-face students. Some parents were mixed in their reviews of the in-district program’s

quality, particularly if the in-district program did not provide classes taught by district

teachers. Concern was noted pertaining to purchased courses that resulted in poor teacher

feedback and limited contact with teachers by students and parents. However, when

discussing in-district courses taught by teachers those students knew and who were

employees of the district, the results were overwhelmingly in favor of this format, and

teacher quality and responsiveness were again mentioned as positive components of the

program.

Social interaction was cited as an important factor, as the in-district cyber

program allowed face-to-face student–teacher interactions as needed, particularly when

questions emerged. Some teachers and parents also noted that students might use the in-

district cyber program as a way to achieve educational goals they would otherwise be

unable to accomplish due to medical concerns, stress, bullying, or other concerns that

could impede learning for some students. The in-district cyber program provided this

flexibility and opportunity to learn without the possible stresses and distractions of in-

class learning.

The discussion of cost and financial considerations during the interview process

indicated that alternative funding sources such as grants and foundation support can

support the continuation or expansion of in-district cyber programming. Cost-saving

measures and budget analysis were also key components that school administrators must

assess when seeking optimal program functionality.

106

One concept continually repeated during the interviews with the three groups of

participants was improving the advertising of the in-district cyber program. Several

parents and students stated that some individuals within the district community were not

entirely sure what the program entailed, what courses were available, and how to become

a part of the program. Parents and students both explained that improving advertising and

generating discussion about why taking cyber classes was a good option would be a

worthwhile practice for the school district. Specifically, this modification was mentioned

as a key way to increase recruiting and retention within the program

With the artifact review process, the research findings indicated that several

students from the group of 12 were designated economically disadvantaged; gender was

also noted along with attendance and behavioral records. Students with a higher number

of late arrivals to school were possibly more likely to have C grades; those with few or no

late arrivals to school were more likely to have A or B grades. Based upon review of the

artifacts and interviews, there was not a strong relationship between student race, gender,

academics, behavioral or attendance information, and one’s decision to attend the in-

district cyber program. Review of district documents regarding strategic planning and

financial documents point toward the importance of retaining or recruiting back students

as the costs of regular education and special education continually increase—especially

when considering that allocations must be given to cyber charter schools at a per pupil

tuition rate. Lastly, when reflecting upon teacher survey responses, several key areas such

as student–teacher interaction and course quality were revealed as key elements to the

overall effectiveness of an in-district cyber program.

107

Summary

Overall, this chapter discussed the information gathered via interviews with 20

participants from groupings such as students, parents, and school administrators. Various

school district artifacts pertaining to in-district cyber school strategic planning, financials

and budgeting, student demographics, and teacher surveys were analyzed to determine

recommendations and understand the background of the online program. The resultant

information gleaned from the aforementioned artifacts and interviews point toward the

importance of—and suggestions for—having in-district teachers involved in the program;

ensuring quality feedback from teacher to student both online and face to face, which is

important in supporting student success; increasing program understanding through

advertising as it could further support retention and recruitment; promoting course and

schedule flexibility as an excellent byproduct of the in-district program; paying close

attention to costs associated with students leaving the district for cyber charter programs,

as they can be extremely high; and keeping in mind the district’s current in-district model

and support from district administrators, which has led to considerable cost savings.

108

CHAPTER 5: INTERPRETATION, CONCLUSION, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to determine the factors associated with the

district’s recruitment and retention of students as they related to cyber learning. The study

sought to understand the experiences of school administrators, students, and parents with

the in-district cyber program while further exploring the associated fiscal conditions. The

study consisted of interviews with three school administrators, 12 students, and five

parents. The study participants were asked semistructured questions by the researcher.

The researcher also analyzed school district artifacts pertaining to in-district cyber

student demographics, per pupil costs, and enrollment as well as documents regarding

strategic planning, teacher surveys, financial costs, and district savings. The researcher

analyzed participant responses utilizing qualitative coding, which resulted in the

emergence of seven themes. The themes are noted in order from most frequently

mentioned by the participants, to least frequently mentioned but still of note: teacher

quality, retention and recruitment, program perception, support, flexibility, social

interaction, and cost/financials. These themes are noted in Chapter 4, which is a detailed

analysis of participant responses and opinions concerning the research questions and

probing questions noted in Appendices B and C.

Conclusion

The research questions posed in this descriptive case study sought to determine

and understand the experiences of school administrators, students, and parents regarding

the in-district cyber program. The primary question and subquestions are noted below.

109

Primary question. What are the experiences of administrators, students, and

parents involved with the in-district cyber program?

Among the participant group, a wide range of responses emerged that helped

shape the outcomes of the study. School administrators reported satisfaction with the

program and sought to continue to develop course offerings for students, analyze

financial considerations, evaluate strategic partnerships, and support the sustained use of

in-district teachers to maintain programmatic excellence. Students noted that they were

pleased with the responsiveness of teacher feedback and availability, enjoyed the

flexibility that online courses afforded them, and found the overall experience to be

positive. Students stated that the district could improve in-district cyber program

advertising so that more potential students and parents would be aware of options with

online learning. Students further noted that in comparison to cyber charter programs or

other cyber options, the in-district cyber program had much more responsive teachers and

frequently had more rigorous course content. Lastly, parents explained that the program

was productive with regard to schedule flexibility, and most were pleased with teacher

feedback. Some parents noted that they were somewhat unsure about the quality of the

course content and how beneficial it might be for students to take courses online in

general. Furthermore, parents noted that the responsiveness of teachers within the in-

district program was superior to their experiences with cyber charter programs or courses

that they had purchased through the district.

Subquestions.

Why are students remaining with the district’s cyber program?

110

Responses from participants indicated that the program’s quality was largely the

result of support from highly regarded teachers, which was a significant reason why

students stayed with the in-district program. Schedule flexibility was cited as another

likely indicator of student retention. Parents and students both remarked that social

factors such as the ability to interact with friends and participate in extracurricular

activities at the school site while still taking online courses was an attractive component

of the program. Parents and student added that they were pleased with the responsiveness

of in-district teachers—a factor that played a role in their choice to stay with the program

analyzed in this study. Other students stated that they were unaware of the other online

options beyond the in-district program.

Why are students returning to the district’s cyber program?

School administrators explained that students may return to the in-district

program from another cyber program due to dissatisfaction with the feedback or the lack

of individualization of course content. Several students stated that they were concerned

with the limited amount of direction they received in their cyber charter school

experience. Students reported that there were several week-long gaps between the

submission of assignments and responses from the online teacher. Students also reported

that they enjoyed the ability to interact with peers as a partial cyber student with the in-

district program. Parents cited knowing that the school district had a strong reputation

overall, which brought credibility to the in-district cyber program compared to other

options.

111

What are the factors that influence a student to either remain or return to the

district’s cyber program?

Factors most frequently cited as influential in a student’s decision to remain or

return to the district’s cyber program aligned with several of the themes noted during the

qualitative coding analysis. Schedule flexibility was a very attractive component of the

program—to both parents and students—as it allowed students to increase their

workload, reduce stress, and meet graduation requirements in a timely fashion. Teacher

quality was also noted by school administrators, students, and parents as a significant

factor in making online program choices. Support from teachers and other district staff

was determined to be a key reason why students and parents felt comfortable returning to

or remaining with the in-district cyber program. Social interaction was very important for

students, so that if they were taking a number of in-district cyber courses, they felt

comfortable knowing that their peers and activities were readily accessible.


retention?

Student responses to this question were mostly aligned with the concept of quality

teacher feedback, consistent communication regarding assignments, and missing work, as

well as the opportunity to meet with teachers face to face as needed. Students also noted

that teachers were very consistent with providing reminders about assignments and

clarifying questions. School administrators stated several times that having district

teachers provide instruction for online classes was very helpful as it allowed for

adherence to high standards and easy communication among teachers and students.

Parents were somewhat mixed with their feedback, as certain respondents noted that

112

students should be responsible for their own work as high school students, whereas others

felt that teachers who were available and willing to support students were extremely

important. Nearly all negative comments regarding teacher feedback pertained to

experience with cyber charter programs, not to the in-district online courses or staff.

Recommendations

Based upon analysis of participant feedback and artifact review, the following

areas should be explored going forward as possible areas of growth or improvement for

the in-district cyber program.

Advertising

A number of students and parents remarked that to expand the in-district program,

more advertising should be distributed throughout the district. Some explained parents

and students noted that it appears as if in-district online courses are a credit recovery

option of sorts offered by guidance. Students stated that other students were largely

unaware of the program and what courses were available. A few parents noted that the

program seemed akin to a last resort for students trying to graduate on time and not as a

primary offering. The district should look for ways to reach a larger percentage of the

school and district population, perhaps via social media or assemblies during the course

of the school year. A reasonable number of students and parents were somewhat unclear

as to what the in-district program entailed and offered for students. Other students were

aware of the in-district cyber program but were a bit unclear as to what courses were

available and how to go about taking these classes. Increasing clarity and improving

advertising was the general recommendation among these respondent groups as a

possible area for growth.

113

Research by Angelino et al. (2007) concluded that seeking to attract and establish

relationships with potential students and current students would be an appropriate way to

communicate with as many students as possible. Angelino et al. (2007) recommended

that districts “initiate contact with students via phone call,” “conduct pre-course

orientation,” and “facilitate informal online chats throughout the course website” (p. 10).

Whereas some of these strategies would be helpful to currently enrolled students,

contacting potential students with personal phone calls would likely develop overall

social relationships and promote the concept of individualized learning.

When school leaders are considering the implementation of an in-district online

program it would be wise to carefully utilize some of the expertise offered by

organizational theorists such as Scharmer (2009), Senge, Smith, Kruschwitz, Laur, and

Schley (2008), and Heifetz and Linsky (2002). Concepts that these thought leaders

posited as leading to the development of a successful in-district cyber program included

navigating change, building enduring programs that last far beyond the designer, and

understanding the perspectives of multiple stakeholders.

The change process is unavoidable when developing a new in-district cyber

program and would necessitate the use of Scharmer’s (2009) concept of “social

complexity” (p. 61). Scharmer (2009) has stated, “Social complexity is a product of

diverse interests and worldviews among stakeholders” (p. 61). It is apparent that school

administrators, students, and parents hold quite varied perspectives, which impact

program development such as that of an in-district cyber program. Any district seeking to

replicate this study’s in-district online model would be wise to adhere to Scharmer’s

advice and seek that “all of the relevant stakeholders’ voices be employed” (p. 61).

114

Utilizing a collaborative model through a change process such as the development and

expansion of online learning is vital to ensure a smooth transition.

Senge et al. (2008) noted the importance of sustaining environments and

resources in organizations as well as in the world as a whole. As Senge et al. (2008) have

explained, “There is no viable path forward that does not take into account the needs of

future generations” (p. 9). Clearly, cyber education meets the needs of future generations

as instruction becomes more and more individualized and able to support a wider variety

of learning goals and outcomes. Building a sustainable program that continues to build

toward future student achievement and success is one of the primary objectives of an in-

district online option.

Heifetz and Linsky (2002) have addressed the role of effective leadership by

suggesting that organizers “move back and forth between the dance floor and the

balcony, making interventions, observing their impact in real time, and then returning to

the action” (p. 53). This analysis points toward the necessity to continually take action

while assessing the overall health of an organizational plan or program. The “balcony and

dance floor” approach discussed by Heifetz and Linsky (2002) applies to an in-district

cyber program as leaders seek to continually monitor progress, suggest alterations, and

evaluate feedback from stakeholders while simultaneously seeking to maintain the

viability of the system for future learners.

Ultimately, school leaders must be willing to adapt to the uncertainty of change,

and adeptly analyze and monitor progress with the ultimate goal of creating and

developing a sustainable in-district cyber program that affords significant learning

opportunities for all participants.

115

Quality of Purchased Courses

An area that was cause for concern among several parents and students was the

poor quality of purchased courses. The purchased courses were not taught by district

teachers and were generally criticized by parents and students as too easy, vague, or

upsetting, as students were unable to adequately interact with the designated teacher or

instructor. Although these courses were offered as a way of providing further flexibility

and options for students, perhaps the district needs to evaluate other course delivery

methods that still have a high level of student–teacher engagement. One solution may lie

with the continued expansion of the in-district cyber program, which would allow for

more in-district teacher-taught classes. An analysis of the provider of these purchased

courses should also take place given the documented dissatisfaction on the part of the

students and parents. An investigation into the district’s current contract status with the

provider of the purchased courses would be necessary to determine if other options were

feasible.

When considering the quality of purchased courses, it was apparent that a number

of parents and students were not necessarily satisfied with the product and responsiveness

of non-school district cyber teachers. Further analysis would be required regarding the

contract the district had with the provider of the purchasable courses and whether

alternative providers were available. School leaders will have to continually think of

creative solutions that still allow the district to be competitive with a wide variety of

course offerings but also to seek a possible expansion of the number of courses that in-

district teachers are able to teach, and to find other providers of online content in an effort

to enhance parent and student online learning experiences.

116

Overall Retention and Recruitment Practices

Although the district was currently successful in retaining students and bringing

in new students to some degree, increased focus on advertising may support

programmatic growth. The review of financial documents made apparent that the per

pupil costs for regular education and special education students climb on a yearly basis.

Therefore, it is worth considering and evaluating the present in-district recruitment

practices in order to maximize efforts for enhanced district savings. Retention and

recruitment practices may simply be a byproduct of higher quality purchased courses, an

increased advertising presence, and greater awareness of the in-district cyber program—

but this area is worth examining from a holistic perspective. Davis (2012) has remarked

that course content should be focused on the individual needs of students and on meeting

the needs or criteria that families deem important for cyber coursework. Research by the

Rogers Family Foundation (2011) has stated that “small group instruction, integration of

digital content, differentiated instruction, use of data, self-efficacy and increased

satisfaction” (p. 5) influence students and families when making a decision about an

online learning program. Furthermore, research by Cavanaugh et al. (2004) supported the

continued use of various forms of communication as a way to meet student needs and

possibly increase retention and recruitment outcomes.

Possible Action Steps

Advertising. The school district should seek to review the current advertising

procedures in place for the in-district cyber program. Additionally, the district should

seek feedback from students and parents regarding advertising practices and awareness of

117

the in-district cyber program and what it has to offer. This feedback can be acquired with

a survey tool deemed appropriate by the district.

Communication. The school district should seek to utilize social media outreach

or face-to-face assemblies or meetings to provide further information about courses and

options. The director of online learning can conduct social media outreach. Through such

venues, online teachers can share their experiences and answer questions from

prospective students regarding the format, content, and pacing of classes. Guidance

counselors and building administrators provide online informational sessions as needed

as well as social media participation. They also determine how advertising and

communication best meet the needs of students and parents. It is likely that social media,

updated websites, email, and phone calls would be inclusive of all stakeholder groups.

Program clarity, quality, and promotion. School leadership should evaluate

steps to improve the understanding of the courses and the program throughout the entire

district community. Such efforts should make clear that the quality of the in-district

program courses is superior to other cyber charter programming, and emphasize the

availability of ready and frequent interaction and feedback from a district teacher.

Retention and recruitment. School district leadership should examine retention

and recruitment practices, and identify gaps and develop a strategic plan for target goals

for the coming school year. As previously noted, analysis of present advertising strategies

and the quality of purchased courses is worthwhile and needed. Advertising and the value

of courses associated with the in-district program are vital to the long-term success of the

program and the district.

118

Recommendations for Further Research

When considering further research, it is essential to track the successes and areas

of improvement within the program on a yearly basis. One specific area of research

pertains to the effectiveness of online learning within the district for students with an IEP.

The relatively new implementation of online learning in the K–12 setting raises a wide

variety of questions for all types of learners. Research into what kinds of regulations,

requirements, and instructional strategies might best meet the needs of students with an

IEP may elicit much-needed information, as online learning will likely expand as part of

blended curriculum and a move to more one-to-one technology device options.

Other research within the district would seek to determine how interested the

general student population is in learning via some sort of online platform. Creating a

survey that asks for student feedback on blended learning options, partial cyber, full

cyber, or other styles of education strongly supported by technology would provide

valuable feedback that could direct the future of the in-district cyber program.

The researcher would also like to expand the study beyond this district into other

rural, suburban, and urban school districts and to determine how receptive students,

parents, and school administrators would be to in-district cyber programs and courses—

specifically courses and programs taught and managed by school district teachers and

administrators, as opposed to partnerships with other providers of online content. Cost

savings will likely be a focus in public education for years to come, and the in-district

cyber options will need further development by all types of districts throughout

Pennsylvania. It would be useful to compare themes across different public school

119

districts and how varying communities might confirm the researcher’s current findings or

bring forth additional areas of exploration and further questions.

Summary

This descriptive case study analyzed the perspectives of various school

administrators, students, and parents while also reviewing numerous in-district cyber

program artifacts in an effort to determine the most effective means of maintaining and

improving retention and recruitment practices. The resulting outcome brought forth seven

themes that indicated the most important factors associated with current programmatic

success along with areas in need of further study and possible development. Themes

delineated in this research point to a high quality in-district teaching staff as a major

contributor to program success. School administrators, students, and parents all

referenced the importance of quality teachers providing substantive feedback in a timely

manner as a way to create a positive reputation for the district’s online learning program.

The next theme pointed to the importance of striving for continued retention and

recruitment of students. Students and parents remarked that increased advertising would

likely lead to further expansion of the in-district cyber school. Program perception was

mostly positive and considered to be of high quality, although some parents and students

had negative opinions about cyber courses provided by the in-district cyber academy that

were fee based and not taught by regular district teachers. School administrators,

students, and parents lauded the support system in place for the in-district cyber courses

and found teacher interactions and availability to be quite strong. By contrast, somewhat

harsh criticism was levied against cyber charter programs, as student and parent

experiences with responsive feedback was absent, inconsistent, and/or at times

120

frustrating. Flexibility was also considered a strength of the cyber program and said to

ameliorate stress for students trying to manage and meet schedule requirements prior to

graduation. Parents and students were pleased with the availability of social interaction

and extracurricular activities while taking in-district cyber courses. Still, cost

considerations continue to be a significant point of interest for school administrators, and

some parents remain aware of the savings associated with retaining and recruiting

students for the in-district cyber program.

In-district cyber programming is a relatively new approach meant to stem the

rising per pupil tuition costs as more and more students opt for educational options

online. The district evaluated in this study displayed considerable planning and foresight

regarding the importance of establishing an in-district program several years ago and, as a

result, saved hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the in-district program had areas of

strength such as teacher quality, student support, social interaction opportunities, and a

rigorous curriculum in place, there was still room for growth regarding program

advertising and the course quality of purchasable online classes. The district would be

wise to continue analyzing its retention and recruitment strategies, as competition is

likely to be fierce from myriad cyber charter programs in the years to come.

121

LIST OF REFERENCES

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2013, April). Quakertown community school district:

A systematic approach to blending learning that focuses on district leadership,

staffing and cost-effectiveness. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files

/Quakertown.pdf

Angelino, L. M., Williams, F. K., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to engage online

students and reduce attrition rates. The Journal of Educators Online, 4(2), 1–14.

Retrieved from www.thejeo.com/Volume4Number2/Angelino%20Final.pdf

Archambault, L., Diamond, D., Brown, R., Cavanaugh, C., Coffey, M., Foures-Aalbu, D.,

Richardson, J., & Zygouris-Coe, V. (2010). Research committee issues brief: An

exploration of at-risk learners and online education. International Association for

K-12 Online Learner. Retrieved August 16, 2014 from http:www.inacol.org

Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. (2009) Adolescent behavioral,

affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of

School Health. Retrieved August 1, 2014 from

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Linda_Pagani/publication/227627311_Adoles

cent_Behavioral_Affective_and_Cognitive_Engagement_in_School_Relationship

_to_Dropout/links/53df69ca0cf2a768e49b96e6.pdf

Arora, R. (2009). The K–12 online evolution. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, 16(6),

17–19. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview

/229749337?accountid=10559

Ash, K. (2010). Lack of sustainable funding a challenge for online ed. Education Week,

29(30), 11. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview

/202767183?accountid=10559

Auditor general Jack Wagner says fixing PA's charter school formula could save $365

million a year in taxpayer money. (2012, June 20). Targeted News Service.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview

/1021255640?accountid=10559

Barbour, M. K. (2010). Researching K–12 online learning: What do we know and what

should we examine? Distance Learning, 7(2), 6–12. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/853890137?accountid=10559

http://www.all4ed.org/files

http://www.thejeo.com/Volume4Number2/Angelino%20Final.pdf

http://www.thejeo.com/Volume4Number2/Angelino%20Final.pdf

http://www.inacol.org/

http://search.proquest.com/docview




122

Barbour, M., Siko, J., Sumara, J., & Simuel-Everage, K. (2012). Narratives from the

online frontier: A K–12 student's experience in an online learning environment.

The Qualitative Report, 17(10), 1–19. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

docview/1504066691?accountid=10559

Berge, Z., & Huang, Y. (2004). A model for sustainable student retention: A holistic

perpsective on the student dropout problem with special attention to e-learning.

DESNEWS, 13(6) 1-26.

Bogden, J. (2003). Cyber charter schools: A new breed in the education corral.

Retrieved from www.nationaledtechplan.org/bb

/discuss2.asp?mode=ga&catID=202&status=approved&bm=318-0.

Burgess-Watkins, K. (2011). Online learning opportunities for K–12 students in Florida's

Nassau County. Distance Learning, 8(1), 1–7. Retrieved from


Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M. & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects

of distance education on K–12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED489533.pdf

Cavanaugh, C, Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K-12 online

learning: A review of literature. International Review of Research in Open and

Distance Learning, ÏO(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl

.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/607

Chaney, E. (2001). Web-based instruction in a rural high school: A collaborative inquiry

into its effectiveness and desirability. NAASP Bulletin, 85, 20–35.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Davis, M. R. (2012). New laws, programs expand K–12 online-learning options.

Education Week, 32(2), 3–3, 4. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com

/docview/1038758420?accountid=10559

Democratic House Education Committee. (2014). Charter & cyber charter school reform

update. Retrieved from http://www.pahouse.com/pr/Charter_and_Cyber_Charter

_School_Reform_Update.pdf

School district document, July 1, 2014, AR No. 107.

http://search.proquest.com/

http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/bb



http://search.proquest.com/

http://www.pahouse.com/pr/Charter_and_Cyber_Charter

123

Education Law Center. (2013). Cyber charter schools. Retrieved from http://www.elc-

pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/access_CyberCharterSchools_FAQ.pdf

Eger, A. (2009, Nov 18). Crisis funds for education sought: A state board's resolution

puts an "emergency" tag on budget shortfalls. McClatchy - Tribune Business

News. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview

/457094506?accountid=10559http://search.proquest.com/docview/807982870?acc

ountid=10559

Foster, J. B. (2011). Education and the structural crisis of capital the U.S. case. Monthly

Review, 63(3), 6–37. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview

/876966304?accountid=10559

Friedman, H. H., & Friedman, L. W. (2011). Crises in education: Online learning as a

solution. Creative Education, 2(3), 156–163. Retrieved from


Glass, G. V. (2009). The realities of K–12 virtual education. Education Public Interest

Center. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507361.pdf

Grix, J. (2002). Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research.

POLITICS, 22(3), 175–186.

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the

dangers of leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Horn, M. B. (2010). K–12 online education is increasingly hybrid learning. Distance

Learning, 7(2), 18–20. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview

/853890164?accountid=10559)

Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Coleman, C. (2008). The evolution of distance

education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web.

TechTrends, 52(5), 63–67. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview

/223118296?accountid=10559

Hull, J. (2010, October 7). Center for public education: Cutting to the bone: How the

economic crisis affects schools. Retrieved from http://www.psba.org/issues-

advocacy/issues-research/research-resource-center/psba-charterschool-white-

paper-oct2010.pdf

Keagy, D. R., Peterson, S. A., Strauss, R. P., & Yarworth, J. S. (2010, October).

Pennsylvania charter schools: Charter/cyber costs for Pennsylvania School

Districts. Retrieved from http://www.psba.org/issues-advocacy/issues-

research/research-resource-center/psba-charterschool-white-paper-oct2010.pdf








http://www.psba.org/issues-advocacy/issues-research/research-resource-center/psba-charterschool-white-paper-oct2010.pdf






124

Klein, A. (2008). U.S. education budget roiled by financial crisis. Education Week, 28(6),

22-n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview

/202755432?accountid=10559

Kozma, R., Zucker, A., Espinoza, C., McGhee, R., Yarnall, L., Zalles, D., & Lewis, A.

(2000). The online course experience: evaluation of the virtual high school’s third

year of implementation, 1999-2000. Arlington, VA: SRI. Retrieved December 8,

2003, from

http://www.govhs.org/Images/SRIEvals/$file/SRIAnnualReport2000.pdf

Lee, M., & Figueroa, R. (2012). Internal and external indicators of virtual learning

success: A guide to success in K–12 virtual learning. Distance Learning, 9(1),


/1014187293?accountid=10559

Martinez, H. (2003). High attrition rates in e-learning: Challenges, predictors and

solutions. E-learning Developers Journal. Retrieved from http://www.

elearningguild.com/pdf/2/071403MGT-1.pdf.

Mekeel, D. (2011). Pa. cyber charter schools not passing test. Reading Eagle. Retrieved

from http://www2.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=349968

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, K. A., Bruwelheide, J., & Poulin, R. (2009). Principles for promoting the

financial sustainability of online programs. Planning for Higher Education, 37(3),


/212637168?accountid=10559

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data

analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Retrieved from https://vivauniversity.files. wordpress.com/2013/11/milesandhuberman1994.pdf

Mills, S. C. (2003). Implementing online secondary education: An evaluation of a virtual

high school. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information

Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 444–

451). Norfolk, VA: AACE.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Search for public school districts.

Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_

detail.asp?ID2=4218330


http://www/


https://vivauniversity.files/

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_

125

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Common core of data: Identification of

rural locales. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp

O'Dwyer, L. M., Carey, R., & Kleiman, G. (2007). A study of the effectiveness of the

Louisiana Algebra I online course. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 39(3), 289–306. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.

com/docview/274711061?accountid=10559

Pape, L., Revenaugh, M., Watson, J., & Wicks, M. (2006). Measuring outcomes in K–12

online education programs: The need for common metrics. Distance Learning,

3(3), 51–58. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview

/230696689?accountid=10559

Patrick, S. (2004). Are schools ready for today’s students? A sneak preview of the

National Education Technology Plan (NETP). Presented at the National

Educational Computing Conference, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from

http://necc2004.minds.tv/

Patrick, S., & Powell, A. (2009). International association for K–12 online learning: A

summary of research on the effectiveness of K–12 online learning. Retrieved from

http://www.k12.com/sites/default/files/pdf/school-

docs/NACOL_ResearchEffectiveness-hr.pdf

Pennsylvania School Board Association. (2011). Cyber charter schools. Retrieved from

http://www.psba.org/issues-advocacy/issues-research/cyber-charter-

schools/cyber-charter_issue_brief-11-4-11.pdf

Performance Profile. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://paschoolperformance.org/

PSEA president: Proposed changes to charter school law undermine public education and

local control. (2011, Jun 23). Targeted News Service. Retrieved from


Rice, K. (2009). Priorities in K–12 distance education: A Delphi study examining

multiple perspectives on policy, practice, and research. Journal of Educational

Technology & Society, 12(3), 163–n/a. Retrieved from


Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K–12 context.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425–448. Retrieved from


Riley, S. (2011, Sep 02). Online K–12 public ed advances most states offering it an

approach that blends offline and face-to-face gains as popular option. Investor's

Business Daily Retrieved from


http://search.proquest/


http://necc2004.minds.tv/

http://www.psba.org/issues-advocacy/issues-research/cyber-charter-schools/cyber-charter_issue_brief-11-4-11.pdf

http://www.psba.org/issues-advocacy/issues-research/cyber-charter-schools/cyber-charter_issue_brief-11-4-11.pdf


126

Rogers Family Foundation. (2011). Oakland unified school district blended learning

pilot. Retrieved from http://www.rogersfoundation.org/system/resources

/0000/0022/BlendedLearning_final.pdf

Ronsisvalle, T., & Watkins, R. (2005). Student success in online K-12 education. The

Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 117-124

Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. San Francisco,

CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Schollie, B. (2001). Student achievement and performance levels in online education

research study. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Online Consortium. Retrieved April

25, 2004, from http://www.albertaonline.ab.ca/pdfs/AOCresearch_full_report.pdf

Senge, P., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2008). The necessary

revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a

sustainable world. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Smart, K., & Cappel, J. (2006). Student’s perceptions of online learning: A comparative

study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5(1). Retrieved from

http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol5/v5p201-219Smart54.pdf

Smith, R., Clark, T, & Blomeyer, R. L. (2005). A synthesis of new research on K-12

online learning. Naperville, IL: Learning Point. Retrieved from

http://www.ncrel.org/tech/synthesis/ synthesis.pdf

School District [Def. 1]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved from http://www.

Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/citation.

TranscribeMe! (2014). Retrieved from http://transcribeme.com/terms-of-service

Trotter, A. (2003). “Virtual school” battle sparks Minn. lawsuit. Education Week, 23(9),


/202700498?accountid=10559

Tunnison, S., & Noonan, B. (2001). On-line learning: Secondary students’ first

experience. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(4), 495–514.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). 10 facts about K–12 education funding. Retrieved

from http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practice in online:

A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

http://www.rogersfoundation.org/system/resources

http://www.albertaonline.ab.ca/pdfs/AOCresearch_full_report.pdf

http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol5/v5p201-219Smart54.pdf

http://www/

http://transcribeme.com/terms-of-service


http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html

127

Verstegen, D. A., & Jordan, T. S. (2009). A fifty-state survey of school finance policies

and programs: An overview. Journal of Education Finance, 34(3), 213–230.

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/ehost/

Weiner, C. (2003, July-September). Key ingredients to online learning: Adolescent

students study in cyberspace. International Journal on E-Learning, 2(3), 44-50.

Wagner, J. (2012, June 20). Charter and cyber charter education funding reform should

save taxpayers $365 million annually. Retrieved from http://www.auditorgen.

state.pa.us/Department/Press/CyberCharterSpecialReport201206.pdf



http://www.auditorgen/

128

APPENDIX A: STUDY APPROVAL LETTER

129

APPENDIX B: ASSUMPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND DELIMITATIONS

Table 11

B1. Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

Assumptions Limitations Delimitations

Most school districts are in

need of in-district cyber

education programs.

A sample size of one school district

and a total of 3 school

administrators, 5 parents, and 12

students may have been too small.

The researcher did not

interview elementary

students who had or were

currently participating in

the in-district cyber

program, as the

experiences may be

difficult accurately to

record and analyze.

Most school districts do not

have an understanding of

experiences of

administrators regarding the

best practices of in-district

cyber/online programming.

The study site was one rural district

in southeastern Pennsylvania.


study large urban and

suburban districts due to

the vast differences in

program design, as they

would not find the data in

this research to be useful.

Most public school districts

are losing considerable

funds due to the per pupil

reimbursement costs

required by cyber charter

schools.

By using a semistructured interview

process, specific data measures

relating to financial problems

associated with losing students to

cyber charter programs may not have

been adequately addressed.


specifically study cyber

charter schools and their

programs because the

researcher’s goal was to

analyze public in-district

cyber programming.

Funding in-district cyber

programs is sometimes too

expensive for school

districts.

The district cyber program in this

study had only been in existence for

5 years, which may have skewed the

results regarding programmatic

successes and failures

Traditional course offerings

in public schools cannot

compete with the thousands

of potential online/cyber

charter school options.

This in-district program may not

have had access to such a wide

variety of online courses due to cost

considerations associated with the

district or parents.

130

APPENDIX C: ALIGNMENT WITH RESEARCH QUESTIONS, RESEARCH

METHODS, AND DATA SOURCES

Table 12

C1. Alignment With Research Questions, Research Methods, and Data Sources

Research questions Research methods Data sources Rationale

What are the

experiences and

perceptions of

administrators,

students, and parents

involved with the in-

district program?

Semistructured

interviews

Individual interviews

with school

administrators/students/pa

rents

Qualitative

interviews

provide in-depth

insight to the

participant’s

experience

Why are students

remaining with the

district’s cyber

program?

Semistructured

interviews


with school

administrators/student

Qualitative

interviews

provide in-depth

insight to the

participant’s

experience

Why are students

returning to the

district’s cyber

program?

Semistructured

interviews


with school

administrator/students

Qualitative

interviews

provide in-depth

insight to the

participant’s

experience

What are the factors

that influence a

student to either

remain or return to the

district’s cyber

program?

Semistructured

interviews


with school

administrators/parents/stu

dents

Qualitative

interviews

provide in-depth

insight to the

participant’s

experience

What role do teachers

have regarding student

persistence and

student retention?

Semistructured

interviews


with school

administrators/parents/stu

dents

Qualitative

interviews

provide in-depth

insight to the

participant’s

experience

131

APPENDIX D: PROBING QUESTIONS

Table 13

D1. Probing Questions

Interview questions Research methods Data sources

What kinds of programs can school districts

put into place that addresses the financial

implications of expanding cyber charter

programs throughout Pennsylvania?

What kinds of cyber/online programs can be

put into place that attract students back to their

home district and retain current students

considering cyber/online educational options?

Semistructured

interviews

Individual

interviews with

school

administrators

How can school districts raise additional

funding to support the implementation of K–12

cyber programs (fully cyber & blended)?

Semistructured

interviews

Individual

interviews with

school

administrators

What factors are most influential regarding the

retention and recruitment of students in their

K–12 district cyber school program?

Semistructured

interviews

School administrator

What decision-making process led you to

return to your home school for cyber/online

coursework?

Semistructured

interviews

Student/Parent

How can the in-district cyber program improve

the retention/recruitment of students within

school community?

Semistructured

interviews

Student/Parent

Did the course offerings of your in-district

cyber program influence your decision to

remain/return to that particular program?

Semistructured

interviews

Student/Parent

Was the cyber course quality of home district

programming versus cyber charter courses a

factor in the decision-making process?

Semistructured

interviews

Student/Parent

132

APPENDIX E: THEMES AND PARTICIPANT GROUPS’ KEY POINTS AND

PHRASES

Table 14

E1. Themes and Participant Groups’ Key Points and Phrases

Themes School administrators Parents Students

Teacher quality “Allow us to use our

teachers that knew were

good that would deliver a

cyber program, that there

was a need for students to

have”

“I think quality speaks to

a lot of parents and I

think they know that

they’re getting the same

teachers that they would

get if the student were

here in school”

“I think that’s what keeps

the people here. The

quality”

“There’s 1700 kids that

are getting an education

here with those teachers

and they get that

experience and those

teachers are proven.”

“We want them to get our

education from our

teachers delivered with

our standards, as opposed

to any state cyber school

that may or may not have

the same standards.”

“When we signed-up,

we were told

someone would talk

to you all the time,

there would be-- that

I wouldn’t be the one

having to guide and

prompt. And it

wasn’t, we were kind

of set up, promised

things and then left

and I think if you’re a

good self-motivator-

it’s great”

“But yet, you have

educators who are

working, working

with your child and

supposedly teaching

your child and they

don’t get the

importance of

feedback.” (in

reference to third

party cyber

charter/class

provider)

“We need more

online classes taught

by in-school teachers,

instead of going out

and putting our faith

“I believe teacher

involvement is good

here at this school,

and I also believe that

the parent

involvement is also

good due to the

system that is set up.”

“It’s a very solid

program. And all of

the students -- at least

in my experience and

from what I’ve heard,

all the teachers who

have cyber courses

that they teach along

with the actual in-

school curriculum,

they all do a very

good job of managing

their online courses

and providing help

for students.”

“I would say they’re

pretty high because

they have a big

involvement with

how you complete

your assignments and

when they’re due,

and how they’re

due.”

133

“They want to maintain

or return, stay in the

district or return to the

district because of the

quality of the

instruction.”

“We take a lot of pride in

our teaching staff and we

expect that our online

teachers are teaching with

the same strategies, with

the same remediation

approaches, with the

same level of support that

they do in their face to

face classes.”

“The other piece that was

important was the

interaction with their

teachers, so having

students access their

instruction in-house.”

“They’re being taught by

teachers that they’ve

known for quite some

time, they can visit those

teachers.”

“A teacher recognizes

where students are

finding success and

struggling in some

aspects.”

in other programs,

and we don’t.”

“I came here because

I knew I wanted her

to have the rigor. I

wanted her to be

challenged. So if I

knew at the time

when I came here

that it wasn’t so-

there weren’t a lot of

classes being taught

by school district

teachers, I probably

would’ve made the

decision to look into

another school.”

(reference to cyber

classes not taught by

in-district teachers)

“I would say that the

in-district schooling

is a lot easier to use

and a lot easier to

understand the

concept because there

is a teacher that I can

go and ask and I

didn’t have to wait

two weeks for them

to get back and email

me.”

“Well, it is easier

because it’s right

there and I know the

teachers who are

teaching the course.”

“But I think that

they’re pretty good at

being patient with the

kids and

understanding where

they’re coming from,

that they’re teaching

themselves and that

they need to learn at

their own pace.”

“Overall it’s a very

positive feedback.

You always get

feedback on general

things from other

people.” “So I think

that’s why I wouldn’t

go back to a charter

program, because I

like it much more.

It’s more

professional.”

“When I came into

school to talk to one

of the teachers, it was

134

good. They knew

what they were

talking about, and

they would try to

influence me as much

as possible, to get the

work done. It’s a

good experience.

Retention and

recruitment

“I feel our reputation here

is one factor that would

get parents to keep their

kids here.”

“ I think that should be

another reason that

parents would want their

kids through a cyber

program offered by a

public school district, is

that degree that has a

little more status than the

other degree.”

“I’d like to think students

are remaining with the

district cyber program

because of the way we’ve

built it with onsite

support, taught by our

teachers, so that a local

educator is there to

support the students.”

"Let's not just create

cyber programs that are

just for kids that are

choosing cyber, but let's

give other kids in the

district the same

opportunities to have

flexible scheduling,

maybe overload their

schedule to graduate

early, or maybe remediate

to recover credits."

“We created our program

“Make sure that all

courses are available.

I know one of my

children wanted to

take Latin II and it

was not available. I

still don’t understand

why a cyber course

can’t be available.”

“I don't think it’s

publicized well. My

sense is that it’s put

out there as, “Well, if

you can’t fit

something in, we can

if we can offer you

this.” I don’t know if

it’s presented as a

favorable option.”

“So sheer

nervousness brought

me back to this

school, and I’m glad I

did it. Now that I

look back, there’s all

the reasons.”

“I think, most

importantly, is to get

across that it’s a

quality program.”

“For the next coming

year and this current

year, the classes that

they provide for us

online, I really

couldn’t get in this

school district.”

(regular, face to face

classes)

“I wanted to stay here

and because of the

fact that the school

did supply us with an

online learning

system, I think that’s

what made my

decision is,

meanwhile, my

friends are still able

to still do my classes

here.”

“Just increase the

technology, I guess.

More and more

people have

computers than

before when we

didn’t have as much.”

“For me, the factors

were whether or not I

felt the course was

manageable to have

online because there

are definitely some

courses I could never

see myself taking

135

to tailor student needs

and parent needs.” “I

would say that students

are identifying this

program as really

tailoring and meeting

their individual needs.”

“It’s recognizing that

students have different

interests inside school

and out of school and this

is a way for parents and

students to tailor their

own instructional

program.”

“But parents, I think, is

where I would want to go

next as far as the

recruitment and retention.

Because if parents aren’t

buying into the

experience their sons or

daughters are having, that

may be the reason why

students chose not to take

an online course.”

online, such as

maybe math

courses.”

“I would say

advertise it more and

maybe at the

beginning of the year

or even during the

summer when

schedules are still

more open to

changes, they could

just talk a bit more

with parents and

students, and let them

know the advantages

and possible

disadvantages. And

just kind of market it

a little better, I had to

do--not necessarily, a

bit of digging but I

kind of had to go and

talk to my counselor

and learn more about

it before and I felt

comfortable taking an

online course.”

“Definitely just like

advertising it more,

then more students

hear about it, and

make it more hands-

on.”

“Most definitely by

providing a really

nice work

environment and

resources, and also

people that will be

able to help them if

they have questions.”

“ I think they could

maybe put it out there

136

and be like--”it’s a

great opportunity for

you. It’s a different

way of learning.”

“Maybe offering a

more variety of

courses of even

advertising more and

presenting the

benefits of them.”

“So most students

return back to it

because they found

that they’re more

comfortable working

that way, and you

adapt to the

environment you’re

in. And I found that it

was more

comfortable to be

able to work in my

own pace.”

“I just think it needs

to be described

better.”

“I think that if they

advertised more

classes available”

“So, I feel like to

recruit more people

into the cyber

program, just

advertising those

specifically would

gain it more of

positive outlook on

it.”

“I feel like they

should talk to

students more about

it, because I know a

137

lot of students know

about the cyber

program, but they

don’t know what it is

exactly.”

“I don’t know if it’s

possible, but possibly

administering like

once a week like an

in-class thing where

they just comment

and they talk about

what they learned.”

Program

perception

“When first learning

about the program, the

interpretation where the

feeling about the program

is that it may be

potentially inferior

because it’s what people

are not used to.”

“I think initially there is

some trepidation before

adoption and seeing it as

a valuable entity.”

“I know there was a lot of

work that needed to be

done in those early years,

why we were doing it.”

“Parents are almost

universally

unimpressed from

what I’ve heard,

which is not to say

they’re against the

program, or they

have strong--- but

they’re just not

impressed, or at this

point they’re not

sold.”

“I think that the

administration and

teachers, think that it

works better than it

does.”

“Our experience was

not” (regarding a

good fit for the

parent’s child). Our

experience was, we

were catching up

from having done it.”

“I like technology but

I’m also like the kind

of person that doesn’t

like technology. I can

see the good and the

“I think they should

be more clear with

their instructions,

because a lot of them

are vague. And have

examples, because

some of the projects,

they don’t have any

examples and you

don’t know how to

do it.”

“And I think a lot of

kids think it’s just

easier to do on the

computer rather than

to do face to face

conversation.”

“I didn’t really know

anything about it, but

a lot of students

thought that it was

just an easy way out

of taking a normal

class. But once you

take it, you realize

it’s a lot more in-

depth and a lot more

work than most of the

students perceive it to

be.”

138

bad in it.”

“From what I’ve

observed with the

administrators is, it

can be somewhat

frustrating because if

it were up to the

administrators, the

programs would be

based solely on in-

district (the in-district

program) because it’s

a well known factor.

You know the

teachers, you know

the rigors they-- and

what standards that

they try and

maintain.”

“It’s frustrating for

administrators when

we have to purchase

our online classes

through other

organizations,

because feedback is a

major issue.”

“From a student’s

perspective, it’s

extremely frustrating

when you’re doing

work and there’s no

feedback provided.”

“Online learning,

now that I see--

online is great for a

variety of reasons,

but I don’t think

people’s perceptions

of the amount of

negative factors

involved is-- I just

don’t think they get

it.

“For my parents, they

thought that it would

actually be more

difficult than a

normal class, because

you have everything

on your own to stay

caught up.”

“I didn’t really have

any preparation for

being in an

environment like that.

I was left alone to do

all my own stuff and

it was kind of just...I

didn’t have anyone to

check in on me.”

“It’s a great thing--

for people that are

easily distracted and

what not.”

“In my experience

the students and

sometimes even the

teachers of the online

classes just think of it

as an extra burden or

just a class. They still

think of it as a serious

class, where some

administrators even

think that it’s much

harder because it is

online, which is true

in some cases, but in

other times not really

so much.”

“There can be a lot of

anxiety for some kids

with attending

normal school to try

going online, some

people learn better

139

“I think that the most

important thing is

that you’re delivering

a quality product.”

that way.”

“I found that I strive

better and can have

myself work harder

when I am influenced

with people around

me and constantly

being aware of

everything, So I

found that returning

to school instead of

cyber school helped

me learn better.”

(refers to a third party

or cyber charter

school not the in-

district program).

“A lot of people that I

know, people that I

talk to, the don’t

really understand it

much. They think,

“cyber school, what

is that? Are you

taught by your

parents? How would

you explain it? I

personally have

enjoyed it.”

“For the past two

years, I’ve been

doing cyber courses

from this district. But

our program is very

well done in the way

that I would never go

back to the previous

program, because it’s

very- you have to be

self-reliant.”

“I had a bit of trouble

with English, but

when I went into the

online course in 9th

140

grade, it helped me

learn a little bit more,

because I could do it

at my own pace.”

“Other than like

grading, it’s hard to

interact with the

teacher unless you let

go off your own

way.”

Support “For me it’s personal

relationships. And

something the in-district

program has always done

well is establishing those

personal relationships,

making sure that the

families and the students

know that everyone here

cares about them, and

that is not just a machine

of a school district; that

we are wholly interested

in the growth of the child

and the success of the

child, so that’s the

biggest point for me.”

“I think just ongoing

communication, being

clear initially as to what

students can expect of

their online experience.”

“And the students, I

found, are more quick to

adapt to an online form,

but parents need an

orientation as to why they

expect them to be doing.”

“From my point of

view, keeping

students on track.

Speaking personally,

that’s really critical.

Keeping the student

engaged, because

there’s obviously a

tendency to become

disengaged if you

don’t just show up in

class. I think those

are the critical

factors.”

“I think that the best

thing that I could say

for us, would’ve have

been if we truly had

someone at the

school, who was for

him, following him,

and helping him.

Like a teacher but not

dumping it on him or

I had to organize

everything and know

what the next step

was.”

“I think online

learning, that is a

huge factor-

feedback.”

“I see them doing is

emailing if anything

is going not okay,

and quite frankly, I

don’t think they push

students to be in

online classes.”

“I think teachers have

to put in as much

effort as students are.

For kids who might

need a little extra

instruction, the

teacher needs to be

around maybe after

school or sometime

during the day,

during a study hall

period in order to

offer that little bit of

extra instruction.”

“I’ve had other

teachers that would

be on there. Every

couple of days, I’ll

have new grades and

it will be very, very

quick, very fast

response time.”

“It’s really easy like

if you don’t

understand

something, you can

141

actually have a

conversation with the

person.”

“Helping to make

sure you stay on the

top and sending

emails when I wasn’t

and it’s also possible

to be with the teacher

to check in to see

what’s due that week

and make sure that

you have everything

done that you need

to.”

“A place where I can

focus on cyber being

able to kind of

connect to the

internet and do my

work for that class,

and also hopefully

kind of other stuff as

well.”

“I think it’s pretty

well organized and I

really like how you

get emails and stuff,

reminding you to do

stuff. The discussion

board is awesome

too, because you get

a perspective of what

everyone else thinks

and you get to

interact with students

even though it’s

online.”

“And also, the

teachers always offer

help in person if you

need it. So I feel like

it’s online but it’s

hands-on too with the

142

personal experience.”

“But I think our

program is especially

set up well. You can

contact your teacher

if need be.”

“It’s very, very easy

to get in touch with

them. They are

always very helpful,

they always provide

feedback. They back

to you very very

quickly, which

convenient, because

of my schedule,

especially.”

“Even if you need

help, you can contact

somebody and they’ll

walk you through the

steps to learn what

you need to learn.”

“Everybody’s really

determined to get you

to do your best on

online. I met a lot of

good people,

especially in the

school district.

They’re kind. They

really do want you to

succeed, to do your

best.”

Flexibility “Because it helps

clear up their

schedules so that they

can take courses they

want to take.”

“Students, from what

I’ve heard, appreciate

the flexibility that it

“So taking online

classes made the

process go a lot faster

for making up credits

and for me, it was

just easier.”

“If it was something

that was going to

143

gives them with

block programming

to complete or fit in

what they need to fit

in.”

help me or help me

progress getting

credits, it would be

something I could

do.”

“I had to do it

because my schedule

was really full and I

had to take Health

and pass, I had to

take that online.”

“From what I’ve seen

and what I’ve

experienced, I would

say that kids

especially like to

have online classes

because it enables

them to earn credits

while not taking up

space during the

school day.”

“There were some

courses in my past

years that I was not

able to fit in with my

schedule and they

were courses that

were required

graduate, so I needed

to take a Health

course online,

because there was no

other way I could fit

it in with my current

class schedule.”

“Probably because

you get more classes

in and they’re easier

to schedule that way,

because if the classes

conflict each other,

then you can go and

take one class, and

144

then you can also

take a different class,

even if they’re

offered at the same

time.”

“It makes things

easier because if you

don’t have a schedule

that fits with you

can’t fit all the

classes that you want,

then you can take it

online, do a cyber

program like that.”

“I think it makes it

easier for us with

overwhelming

schedules.”

“I think it offers an

easy way to get some

classes out of the way

so that it doesn’t take

up space on their

schedule, like some

of the required

classes.”

“It is very convenient

if you wanted--

especially because I,

personally went into

online courses

because I play tennis.

Whether it’s sports or

health reasons, it’s

just very convenient

for them, time-wise.”

“It’s a great way to

get extra credits on

top of your other

classes. You can even

do an online course

during your semester

classes, for example,

145

I need a history

credit, so I can get

my history credit

online while

continuing to do my

current classes.”

“Think it’s good if

students have-- if

they can’t fit

something in their

schedule.”

“It’s more convenient

overall. I didn’t have

any room in my

schedule, that’s why I

took it.”

Social

interaction

“There’s a social

component right, and

students are obviously

growing up as much

socially as they are

academically and being

with friends, potentially

having the opportunity to

graduate with their

friends and continue in

the community where

they are, feels like

home.”

“Students enjoy having

peer interaction which

they weren’t experiencing

when they were fully

cyber and fully outside of

the district. In the

program they’re in now,

they can spend part of

their day with their peers,

and peers are important to

students.”

“His friends are here.

His other classes are

here, his other classes

where he has a

physical presence.

His athletics are here,

his social life is

here.”

“I think that some

kids feel alienated or

that they don’t fit in -

and it’s easier for

them to do cyber.

From the few other

kids that I have ever

met, I think that it

was a relief for them

to not have the

pressure of school.”

“The social aspect of,

his friends are still

here, being in a play,

or playing sports, or

tech school, or

whatever, can’t be

done, unless you go

“In the cases that I’ve

seen, it’s been

because of the in-

school environment

of the bullying or the

harassment or just

because for some

kids it’s easier to do

their learning online

or they don’t feel

comfortable in a

classroom.”

“I’m definitely more

of a social person, so

it’s not really

something that I’m

looking for. But I

definitely think that

having that

opportunity to be able

to kind of take myself

out of the situation

and be able to be

constantly

surrounded by

people, is nice.”

146

through the in-district

cyber school, so that

was for him.”

“I still think there

needs to be-- we

can’t forget the

social. Kids need to- I

think everything is

always on the

computer. There

needs to be other

ways you depend for

knowledge like

whether you read a

book or going to.”

“Socially, I was

concerned about her

not interacting with

other kids before she

walked out of here

and went to college.”

“I enjoy being in a

classroom and

learning like that. But

if I had to go back to

cyber, like if I were

to be injured again, I

would definitely go

back to cyber. It was

a great help during

that.”

Cost/Financials “We actually brought

someone on full-time to

run the program and used

the savings that he was

able to bring kids back

into sort of offset the cost

for the whole program.”

“We budget for just local

donations or local grants,

anything like that to run

different programs.”

“The state has some

grants that are available.”

“The best way to address

this, the best way to look

at it is look at the current

purchasing practices,

current expenditures, see

where fixed assets are

147

being purchased because

fixed assets are a dead

zone anymore.”

“Maybe eliminate some

of those and come back

to looking at dynamic

resources, flexible

solutions, online

solutions that grow

overtime, online courses,

online content, robotics

programs, even things

like remediation, I would

consider a blended

solution.”

“If you’re able to use

state grants, that’s great

because you can open

your budget and raise

your expenditure and

your revenue to the

same.”

“Also working with your

education foundation is

another really great way.”

“Training teachers and

supporting administrators

in a successful

implementation of online

learning, again,

partnering with

organizations that may be

skilled in training.”

“Not even having the

money, but partner with

your neighboring districts

that have an online

program to just learn

from what your neighbor

is doing.”

148

APPENDIX F: WORD WEBS

Most Common Themes

Administration Responses

149

Parent Responses

150

Student Responses

Combined Responses From all Participants

151

VITA


2609 Wister Court

Lansdale, PA 19446 [email protected]

610-509-6008

Education & Certifications

Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA June 2015 Ed.D. Education Leadership & Management GPA: 3.93

Temple University, Philadelphia, PA May 2013 PA Certification: K-12 Principal GPA: 4.0 PA Certification: K-12 Supervisor of Curriculum & Instruction

Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, Kutztown, PA December 2008 M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction GPA: 3.81 PA Certification: (7-12) Communication and English

Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, Kutztown, PA December 2002 B.A. Speech Communication; Minor, Public Relations GPA: 3.41 Administrative Experience

Interim Dean of Students: Palisades High School March 2015 to May 2015 K-12 Principal/Superintendent Internship & May 2012 to November 2014

Curriculum & Instruction Internship:

Palisades School District Teaching Experience

English Teacher August 2008 to Present Palisades School District, Palisades High School,

Kintnersville, PA

English Teacher Feb. 2007 to Aug. 2008 Allentown School District

CIS: Success Academy Fairgrounds, Allentown, PA

Professional Experience

Site Coordinator Jan. 2005 to Feb. 2007 Communities In Schools of the Lehigh Valley, Inc., Francis D. Raub & South Mountain Middle Schools,

Alternative Learning Center Allentown School District, Allentown, PA

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]